At least one log4cxx user has been using my fork of log4cxx (which includes PR#21) to build on Windows (see https://github.com/microsoft/vcpkg/issues/6125)
On Mon, Mar 30, 2020 at 2:35 PM Ralph Goers <ralph.go...@dslextreme.com> wrote: > I’d be happy to merge it if someone involved with the project (even a > non-committer) can look at it. I don’t normally work on Windows so trying > to run a build with it is a bit more than I would like to do. > > Ralph > > > On Mar 29, 2020, at 7:19 PM, Stephen Webb <swebb2...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > Is there anyway I can to help move this forward (I do not have an Apache > > account)? > > > > My PR#21 (https://github.com/apache/logging-log4cxx/pull/21) remains > > un-reviewed. > > > > I have created a migration tool > > https://github.com/stephen-webb/log4cxx_10_to_11 for anyone who has the > > same migration issues as I. > > > > Regards > > Stephen Webb > > > > > > > > On Wed, Mar 4, 2020 at 3:16 AM Tobias Frost <t...@coldtobi.de> wrote: > > > >> On Tue, Mar 03, 2020 at 04:51:28PM +1100, Stephen Webb wrote: > >> > >>> I would be surprised if any unix distribution would change to 0.11 > >> log4cxx > >>> if its API is incompatible with 0.10. > >> > >> With my Debian maintainer hat on: > >> This is nothing special and day to day businesss with distos: > >> > >> It will "just" invoke a library transition [1], and the new binary > >> packages will be named according to the new SONAME, e.g liblog4cxx11 > >> After the transition the old library version will be removed from > >> Debian. > >> > >> Frankly, I'm really looking forward to have a new liblog4cxx for > >> Debian, and now (as we are still some time away from the next Debian > >> release) would be absolutly the best time for a new release. > >> The new version just fixes so many issues that it really pays off the > >> extra work for packaging and the transtion, introduced by the SONAME > >> bump. (my 2cent…) > >> > >> -- > >> Cheers, > >> tobi > >> > >> [1] https://wiki.debian.org/Teams/ReleaseTeam/Transitions > >> > >>> Regards > >>> Stephen Webb > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> On Tue, Mar 3, 2020 at 4:28 AM Thorsten Schöning < > tschoen...@am-soft.de> > >>> wrote: > >>> > >>>> Guten Tag Ralph Goers, > >>>> am Montag, 2. März 2020 um 16:34 schrieben Sie: > >>>> > >>>>> There is a difference between a user’s compile failing vs the build > >>>>> having changed. > >>>> > >>>> And which? Things don't work in the worst case either way and need to > >>>> be adopted. Why exactly is getting rid of build support by ANT > >>>> acceptable for users relying on that, but applying LOGCXX-319 might(!) > >>>> not be? > >>>> > >>>> If I remember correctly, the concrete changes could even be adopted > >>>> using automatic search&replace. > >>>> > >>>>> Given how old log4cxx is I would expect it to be > >>>>> used in a fair number of places despite its version number. > >>>> > >>>> And a fair number of users applied either the available patches > >>>> already since the last release or simply work with master already > >>>> anyway. I can't remember anyone complaining about the changes > >>>> introcuded by that concrete issue in the last years as well. > >>>> > >>>>> I > >>>>> haven’t looked at the code myself but is there no way to keep it > >>>>> backward compatible while also keeping the new changes? > >>>> > >>>> In my opinion this is an unnecessary meta-discussion until a concrete > >>>> problem has been described introduced by LOGCXX-319 or other changes. > >>>> So at least I won't reconsider each and every change since the last > >>>> release. > >>>> > >>>> Mit freundlichen Grüßen, > >>>> > >>>> Thorsten Schöning > >>>> > >>>> -- > >>>> Thorsten Schöning E-Mail: thorsten.schoen...@am-soft.de > >>>> AM-SoFT IT-Systeme http://www.AM-SoFT.de/ > >>>> > >>>> Telefon...........05151- 9468- 55 > >>>> Fax...............05151- 9468- 88 > >>>> Mobil..............0178-8 9468- 04 > >>>> > >>>> AM-SoFT GmbH IT-Systeme, Brandenburger Str. 7c, 31789 Hameln > >>>> AG Hannover HRB 207 694 - Geschäftsführer: Andreas Muchow > >>>> > >>>> > >> > > >
