On 08/12/2007 05:45 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote: > > On Aug 12, 2007, at 9:00 AM, Ruediger Pluem wrote: > >> >> -1 from me on 2.0.60 as the test framework revealed regressions >> compared to 2.0.59: >> >> > > What platform? Trying to recreate this...
Sorry for omitting: SuSE Linux 32 Bit: gcc (GCC) 4.1.2 20061115 (prerelease) (SUSE Linux) Copyright (C) 2006 Free Software Foundation, Inc. This is free software; see the source for copying conditions. There is NO warranty; not even for MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. Linux euler 2.6.18.8-0.5-ruediger-20070715 #1 PREEMPT Sun Jul 15 10:44:38 CEST 2007 i686 athlon i386 GNU/Linux glibc-2.5-25 openSUSE 10.2 (i586) VERSION = 10.2 OpenSSL 0.9.8d 28 Sep 2006 openssl-0.9.8d-23.1 > >> >> These regression are caused by an apr problem. 2.0.59 is shipped with >> apr 0.9.12 whereas >> 2.0.60 is shipped with apr 0.9.14. >> >> > >> So I guess we either have to ship 2.0.x with an older release of apr >> 0.9.x or we have to >> wait for a new release of apr 0.9.x that fixes this problem. >> > > I would prefer not waiting for the next 0.9.x release of APR, > so that means shipping 2.0.60 with 0.9.12. 0.9.13 includes > the problematic patch :( > > Comments? Then this looks like the way to go. As you proposed to release 2.2.6 in about 8 weeks, we can also release 2.0.62 then if a new apr 0.9.x release is available then that fixes this issue. > > Also, would this require a new tag for 2.0.60? It's not > an Apache problem, rather with how the 2.0.60 tarball was > done, but whenever problems have existed in the tarballs > before, we have retagged and rerolled, which I think we > would need to do now... That's what I'm going to do... Although this is an apr problem and would mean that the tags for 2.0.60 and 2.0.61 would be the same I would prefer a new tag and a new tarball 2.0.61 to avoid any confusion. Regards Rüdiger
