My own..

Cheers!

> On Mar 28, 2019, at 10:00 AM, Plüm, Rüdiger, Vodafone Group 
> <ruediger.pl...@vodafone.com> wrote:
> 
> What pcre lib did you use on CentOS5? The one provided by CentOS or your own?
>  
> Regards
>  
> Rüdiger
>  
>  
> C2 General
> Von: Jim Jagielski <j...@jagunet.com> 
> Gesendet: Donnerstag, 28. März 2019 14:52
> An: httpd <dev@httpd.apache.org>
> Betreff: Re: [VOTE] Release httpd-2.4.39
>  
> Yep, CentOS5. Mostly due to the fact that regressions would likely show up 
> more readily on older OSs rather than newer ones.
>  
> Plus, there's still a crap-ton of systems using CentOS5/RHEL5
>  
> 
> On Mar 28, 2019, at 8:51 AM, Plüm, Rüdiger, Vodafone Group 
> <ruediger.pl...@vodafone.com <mailto:ruediger.pl...@vodafone.com>> wrote:
>  
> 
> 
> 
> C2 General
> 
> 
> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> Von: Jim Jagielski <j...@jagunet.com <mailto:j...@jagunet.com>>
> Gesendet: Donnerstag, 28. März 2019 13:39
> An: httpd <dev@httpd.apache.org <mailto:dev@httpd.apache.org>>
> Betreff: Re: [VOTE] Release httpd-2.4.39
> 
> 
> 
> On Mar 27, 2019, at 11:09 AM, Daniel Ruggeri <drugg...@primary.net 
> <mailto:drugg...@primary.net>>
> wrote:
> 
> 
> Hi, all;
>  Please find below the proposed release tarball and signatures:
> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/httpd/ 
> <https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/httpd/>
> 
> I would like to call a VOTE over the next few days to release this
> candidate tarball as 2.4.39:
> 
> [ ] +1: It's not just good, it's good enough!
> [ ] +0: Let's have a talk.
> [ ] -1: There's trouble in paradise. Here's what's wrong.
> 
> The computed digests of the tarball up for vote are:
> sha1: e66d6bfea42254e64d3b5009f49ecc486ac46de2 *httpd-2.4.39.tar.gz
> sha256:
> 8b95fe249f3a6c50aad3ca125eef3e02d619116cde242e1bc3c266b7b5c37c30 *httpd-
> 2.4.39.tar.gz
> 
> 
> --
> Daniel Ruggeri
> 
> Tested and passed on the following systems (no regressions):
> 
>  o macOS 10.14.4, Xcode 10.2
>  o CentOS 5, 64bit
> 
> Really CentOS 5? Just asking because it does not receive further OS updates 
> and I wouldn't recommend to use it any longer.
> 
> Regards
> 
> Rüdiger

Reply via email to