Re: A push for 2.4.2
How does the week of April 2nd sound? This should provide enough time for the proposed backports to get enough votes and to propose the backports based on recent trunk improvements... Sound like a plan? I volunteer to RM. On Mar 14, 2012, at 3:36 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote: In the attempts to keep the momentum going, I'd like to push for a httpd 2.4.2 release Real Soon Now.
Re: A push for 2.4.2
On 25.03.2012 19:09, Jim Jagielski wrote: How does the week of April 2nd sound? This should provide enough time for the proposed backports to get enough votes and to propose the backports based on recent trunk improvements... Sound like a plan? I volunteer to RM. On Mar 14, 2012, at 3:36 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote: In the attempts to keep the momentum going, I'd like to push for a httpd 2.4.2 release Real Soon Now. +1 Rainer
Re: A push for 2.4.2
On 25 Mar 2012, at 7:09 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote: How does the week of April 2nd sound? This should provide enough time for the proposed backports to get enough votes and to propose the backports based on recent trunk improvements... Sound like a plan? I volunteer to RM. +1. I've just TR'ed apr-util v1.4.2, containing some compile time fixes for static builds. In theory, given no drama it should be ready for April 2nd. Regards, Graham -- smime.p7s Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
Re: A push for 2.4.2
I have been trying to build trunk from trunk versions of apr and apr-util. buildconf complains about not being able to find APR-util (or apr-UTIL). In any case, caps are involved. Windows might not complain, but UNIX does. To test what you are testing - should I use apr and apr-util trunks, or is it better in all thinks - i.e. including httpd-trunk builds to use the released versions of apr, or their trunk versions. Reading the lists I see many of you are involved in both projects. I just want to be in sync with the ways you test for new releases. Sincerely, Michael On Sun, Mar 25, 2012 at 10:40 PM, Graham Leggett minf...@sharp.fm wrote: On 25 Mar 2012, at 7:09 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote: How does the week of April 2nd sound? This should provide enough time for the proposed backports to get enough votes and to propose the backports based on recent trunk improvements... Sound like a plan? I volunteer to RM. +1. I've just TR'ed apr-util v1.4.2, containing some compile time fixes for static builds. In theory, given no drama it should be ready for April 2nd. Regards, Graham --
Re: A push for 2.4.2
On Sun, Mar 25, 2012 at 6:18 PM, Michael Felt mamf...@gmail.com wrote: I have been trying to build trunk from trunk versions of apr and apr-util. buildconf complains about not being able to find APR-util (or apr-UTIL). In any case, caps are involved. Windows might not complain, but UNIX does. To test what you are testing - should I use apr and apr-util trunks, or is it better in all thinks - i.e. including httpd-trunk builds to use the released versions of apr, or their trunk versions. Reading the lists I see many of you are involved in both projects. I just want to be in sync with the ways you test for new releases. use apr 1.4.x and apr-util 1.4.x with httpd trunk or httpd 2.4.x
Re: A push for 2.4.2
On 26 Mar 2012, at 12:18 AM, Michael Felt wrote:
I have been trying to build trunk from trunk versions of apr and apr-util.
buildconf complains about not being able to find APR-util (or apr-UTIL). In
any case, caps are involved. Windows might not complain, but UNIX does.
In theory, you should be able to get away with not calling buildconf at all,
given that this command is run before the tarballs are created and it should
all be functional from the outset. Or to put it another way, you only need to
run buildconf if you checked the code out from svn, instead of trying to build
from a tarball.
The ./configure script needs the base path of the apr and apr-util
installations passed to it, something like this:
./configure [options] --with-apr=%{_prefix} --with-apr-util=%{_prefix}
where prefix is /opt/local (for you, as I recall).
Regards,
Graham
--
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
Re: Cannot start httpd v2.4.1 with mpm_build on AIX
Hi Michael, Am 21.03.2012 19:45, schrieb Michael Felt: Unfortunately - 2.4.2 is a nogo... here's the 2.4.x patch I've just proposed for backport: http://people.apache.org/~fuankg/diffs/mpm_dso_exports.diff Gün.
