I did and it was rewritten upstream (https://github.com/mochi/mochiweb/commit/e8156a1c44d054f1f6e9396c828751ed22418d7f).
It's after the release we have so we have a few options; 1) Upgrade to a newer version. 2) Backport the patch. 3) Add eunit dependency to autotools. I vote for 3 for 1.1 and then upgrade and revert that when mochiweb makes a release with the fix. B. On Tue, Dec 7, 2010 at 11:11 PM, Jan Lehnardt <j...@apache.org> wrote: > > On 8 Dec 2010, at 00:05, Robert Newson wrote: > >> Not to hijack the thread but the Mochiweb upgrade also makes eunit a >> build dependency which has caused issues on Debian installs (eunit >> being a separate and optional package). > > Didn't you propose a patch to mochiweb that makes eunit build-optional? > > Cheers > Jan > -- > >> >> On Tue, Dec 7, 2010 at 11:03 PM, Robert Newson <robert.new...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >>> +1 for R13B04. >>> >>> On Tue, Dec 7, 2010 at 10:53 PM, Paul Davis <paul.joseph.da...@gmail.com> >>> wrote: >>>> On Tue, Dec 7, 2010 at 5:46 PM, Paul Davis <paul.joseph.da...@gmail.com> >>>> wrote: >>>>> On Tue, Dec 7, 2010 at 5:43 PM, Adam Kocoloski <kocol...@apache.org> >>>>> wrote: >>>>>> On Dec 7, 2010, at 5:40 PM, Paul Davis wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> On Tue, Dec 7, 2010 at 5:38 PM, Adam Kocoloski <kocol...@apache.org> >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>> Hi, the mochiweb we're shipping in 1.1.0 has abandoned support for >>>>>>>> R12B05, so we should revisit our minimum required Erlang version. Do >>>>>>>> we have a compelling reason for supporting anything below R13B04? >>>>>>>> That release introduces support for recursive type specifications, >>>>>>>> which are useful when describing revision trees and JSON objects to >>>>>>>> dialyzer. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Regards, Adam >>>>>>> >>>>>>> +1 for R13something. >>>>>> >>>>>> Paul, is there a NIF-based argument for a particular R13 release? I >>>>>> know we don't use NIFs in 1.1.x, but it'd be nice to limit the number of >>>>>> times we have to bump. >>>>>> >>>>>> Adam >>>>> >>>>> There's nothing major that I remember in the R13 series. Maybe a few >>>>> bug fixes or something, but I'd have to look. >>>>> >>>>> The major NIF jump was with R14. For instance, integrating Emonk requires >>>>> R14. >>>>> >>>>> Also, NIF's are awesome. >>>>> >>>> >>>> I stand corrected. Out of curiosity I went back and checked the >>>> progression of NIF support. Turns out they're not even available until >>>> R13B03. For some reason I thought the first version was in the last of >>>> the R12's. >>>> >>>> Also, in R13B04 there are some noticeable upgrades to things like NIF >>>> function signatures and other bits that would be backwards >>>> incompatible (also, no one uses the version from R13B03 anymore, so if >>>> we wanted to backport something it'd be a major breakage). >>>> >>>> So I revise my statement, I'd vote for R13B04 as the minimum. Also, it >>>> has the nice symmetry of relying on the latest R$(MAJOR)B04 Erlang VM >>>> which I declare to be the optimum balance between new features and >>>> stability. >>>> >>> > >
