Re: [RELEASE CANDIDATE] libapreq 1.34-RC4
Philip M. Gollucci wrote: Issac Goldstand wrote: http://people.apache.org/~issac/libapreq-1.34-RC4.tar.gz Unit tests blow up spectacularly on solaris 2.10 but I don't think we support that and is related to Request.so failing to load. It does compile. I'll get a freebsd test for some sanity in the nearish future here. I wouldn't worry about the solaris blow ups (1.33 doesn't work either) Nothing liked getting pissed off to get things to work. (I believe the only difference I did was -httpd vs -apxs) All tests successful. Files=4, Tests=25, 3 wallclock secs ( 1.22 cusr + 0.17 csys = 1.39 CPU) Solaris 2.10 apache 1.3.41 mod_perl 1.30 perl 5.8.8 so thats a +1 Neither of Steve's changes are to apreq itself so they don't block the release. +1: stevenhay, pgollucci +0: -0: -1: ISSAC did you vote ? if you do we get the required votes. If do the release, make sure you send the e-mails from an @apache.org e-mail. -- Philip M. Gollucci ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) c: 703.336.9354 Consultant - P6M7G8 Inc. http://p6m7g8.net Senior System Admin - RideCharge, Inc. http://ridecharge.com 1024D/DB9B8C1C B90B FBC3 A3A1 C71A 8E70 3F8C 75B8 8FFB DB9B 8C1C Work like you don't need the money, love like you'll never get hurt, and dance like nobody's watching.
Re: Should we release 2.10?
Bojan Smojver wrote: On Fri, 2008-11-14 at 09:10 -0500, Adam Prime wrote: I was reminded of a documentation omission by an email on the mod_perl list this morning. Can something be added into the porting warnings here: http://httpd.apache.org/apreq/docs/libapreq2/group__apreq__xs__request.html mentioning that my @params = $r-param() no long returns a unique list of the params. IE that ?a=ba=c will return (a, a), not (a), which is how it worked in libapreq1. Sure. Do you have a patch? Does the attached patch work? Adam Index: glue/perl/lib/Apache2/Request.pm === --- glue/perl/lib/Apache2/Request.pm(revision 721076) +++ glue/perl/lib/Apache2/Request.pm(working copy) @@ -417,6 +417,10 @@ =item * Cparam includes the functionality of Cparms() and Cparams(), so they are now deprecated and may be removed from a future 2.X release. +=item * Cparam called in a list context no longer returns a unique list of +paramaters. The returned list contains multiple instances of the +parameter name for multivalued fields. + =back
Re: Should we release 2.10?
Adam Prime wrote: Bojan Smojver wrote: http://httpd.apache.org/apreq/docs/libapreq2/group__apreq__xs__request.html Does the attached patch work? Committed revision 721096. Backported to branches/2_10 721099. you forgot to bump the =over value :) -- Philip M. Gollucci ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) c: 703.336.9354 Consultant - P6M7G8 Inc. http://p6m7g8.net Senior System Admin - RideCharge, Inc. http://ridecharge.com 1024D/DB9B8C1C B90B FBC3 A3A1 C71A 8E70 3F8C 75B8 8FFB DB9B 8C1C Work like you don't need the money, love like you'll never get hurt, and dance like nobody's watching.
