On 2/4/06, William A. Rowe, Jr. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Something we need to make a decision on that was discussed on IRC...
>
> the new patch introduces a new enumerated possible lock type. Now in theory,
> if you compile into a apr-util derived module built against 1.2 and prior,
> after th
Ivan,
although I essentially grok what you are saying, please follow the
guidelines at http://apr.apache.org/patches.html so there is absolutely
no ambiguity in the fix that needs to be applied. If you get to it right
away, this might make in into the next release, since I'm eager to close
thi
Chris, and devs, I'm confused;
the thd->td handle *is* closed in apr_thread_join. If we deploy this patch
to accomodate a particular programming style, we lose valuable return context
information, but more importantly, if you aren't invoking apr_thread_join, then
on many flavors of *nix you aren
Your patch submission was great, thank you Chris, and sorry it's taken a while
to get back to this patch.
Yours,
Bill
Chris Demetriou wrote:
Sorry, guess i sent this with a poorly-formed subject last time around.
(Patch included as an attachment because I can't send it in a way that
i'm sure
On 2/4/06, Sander Temme <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Re: APR-Util
>
> FWIW I agree with wrowe on the licensing issues with gdbm. Linking
> against GPL code by default is a booby trap for whomever packages the
> library.
There seem to be enough questions about this, so let's just fix up the
GDBM/B
On 2/4/06, William A. Rowe, Jr. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Garrett Rooney wrote:
> >
> >> FWIW, here's a patch (to trunk) that handles the GDBM side of things,
> >> since it's like a 2 line change. Seems to work just fine here. I
> >> didn't do anything about BDB, since the BDB part of the co
On 2/4/06, William A. Rowe, Jr. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Looks good, +1 to commit to branches 0.9, 1.2 and trunk.
Committed and merged to both 0.9.x and 1.2.x.
> I see --with-gdbm=yes already does some sane looking for an obvious install
> path of gdmb.h etc, so the change should be mostly pa
Garrett Rooney wrote:
FWIW, here's a patch (to trunk) that handles the GDBM side of things,
since it's like a 2 line change. Seems to work just fine here. I
didn't do anything about BDB, since the BDB part of the configure
scripts scare me...
ROFL - I don't blame you (!) But it appears to
On Jan 29, 2006, at 11:33 PM, Garrett Rooney wrote:
+1 -1 for release:
[X] [ ] apr-0.9.9
[ ] [X] apr-util-0.9.9
./testall -v for APR:
Darwin Graymalkin.local 8.4.0 Darwin Kernel Version 8.4.0: Tue Jan 3
18:22:10 PST 2006; root:xnu-792.6.56.obj~1/RELEASE_PPC Power
Macintosh powerpc
Looks good, +1 to commit to branches 0.9, 1.2 and trunk.
I see --with-gdbm=yes already does some sane looking for an obvious install
path of gdmb.h etc, so the change should be mostly painless. An obvious note
in CHANGES would be useful here for users who wish to continue configuring
against gdb
Colm MacCarthaigh wrote:
On Sat, Feb 04, 2006 at 12:48:50PM -0600, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
-1 for apr-util-0.9.9 - for licensing issues alone. Just in case the
scope of this issue isn't clear, I obtained an svn binary for my
Solaris 10 box, for example. It is linked to libgdbm, and throug
On Sat, Feb 04, 2006 at 12:48:50PM -0600, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
> -1 for apr-util-0.9.9 - for licensing issues alone. Just in case the
> scope of this issue isn't clear, I obtained an svn binary for my
> Solaris 10 box, for example. It is linked to libgdbm, and through
> deliberate fault of
Garrett Rooney wrote:
As before, but this time with the 0.9.x branch. Here's a vote for the
new 0.9.9 release tarballs, now available at
http://apr.apache.org/dev/dist/.
The only changes are a win32 compilation fix, a last minute win32
specific bugfix, a new test for that bug, and some brand sp
Something we need to make a decision on that was discussed on IRC...
the new patch introduces a new enumerated possible lock type. Now in theory,
if you compile into a apr-util derived module built against 1.2 and prior,
after this patch it can create an 'unknown lock type'. Any operation on
th
Jeff Trawick wrote:
On 2/4/06, Jeff Trawick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 2/3/06, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
# If Expat has been bundled, then go and configure the thing
#
-if test -d xml/expat; then
+if [ -f xml/expat/buildconf.sh ]; then
Curious: what does this change d
Jeff Trawick wrote:
On 2/3/06, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
--- apr/apr-util/branches/0.9.x/configure.in (original)
+++ apr/apr-util/branches/0.9.x/configure.in Fri Feb 3 17:20:52 2006
@@ -186,8 +186,7 @@
fi
if test ! -d "$top_builddir/include/private"; then
-mkdir $top_bu
Jeff Trawick wrote:
Modified: apr/apr-util/trunk/buildconf
URL:
http://svn.apache.org/viewcvs/apr/apr-util/trunk/buildconf?rev=374805&r1=374804&r2=374805&view=diff
==
--- apr/apr-util/trunk/buildconf (original)
+++ apr
On 2/4/06, Jeff Trawick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 2/3/06, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > # If Expat has been bundled, then go and configure the thing
> > #
> > -if test -d xml/expat; then
> > +if [ -f xml/expat/buildconf.sh ]; then
>
> Curious: what does this change do?
On Sun, Jan 29, 2006 at 11:33:44PM -0800, Garrett Rooney wrote:
> [X] [ ] apr-0.9.9
> [X] [ ] apr-util-0.9.9
+1 :)
--
Colm MacCárthaighPublic Key: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On 2/3/06, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewcvs?rev=374808&view=rev
> Log:
> Fix VPATH builds, and symlink builds where apr and apr-util
> reside in parallel as symlinks to directories with more explicit
> names, e.g. apr-1.x and apr-util-1.x. Th
On 2/3/06, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewcvs?rev=374805&view=rev
> Log:
> Fix VPATH builds, and symlink builds where apr and apr-util
> reside in parallel as symlinks to directories with more explicit
> names, e.g. apr-1.x and apr-util-1.x. Th
21 matches
Mail list logo
