On Wed, Nov 30, 2005 at 07:10:37PM -0600, William Rowe wrote:
Colm MacCarthaigh wrote:
If apr 1.0 or 1.1 happen to be installed, I don't see why it's not
reasonable to fail to configure. The administrator may intend to link
against the system version, they may not want httpd having its own
Roy T. Fielding wrote:
On Nov 30, 2005, at 10:12 PM, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
So we've been compiling and improving the code, but the build/ install
status
is -worse- than httpd-2.0, ergo this is not the best version of
apache now
available and is -not- ready for GA.
I just built from
Any users who run httpd are unlikely to have installed APR 1.[01] given
that APR 1.x has never been supported by an httpd release to date. It's
really only httpd/APR developers who are likely to get into this
situation. (APR 1.x has never been shipped in a Subversion tarball)
As far as i
On Thu, Dec 01, 2005 at 04:06:37AM -0600, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
Ok, but did you try installing into a tree that has, say, a fink port of
svn based on apr 1.0 or 1.1? We are (mostly) talking about where httpd
is finding stale APR versions related to non-httpd packages. (Non-httpd,
On Thu, Dec 01, 2005 at 04:06:37AM -0600, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
Ok, but did you try installing into a tree that has, say, a fink port of
svn based on apr 1.0 or 1.1? We are (mostly) talking about where httpd
Subversion has never officially supported anything other than APR 0.9.x -
i.e.
On Thu, Dec 01, 2005 at 11:11:26AM +0100, Andreas Lindström wrote:
Any users who run httpd are unlikely to have installed APR 1.[01] given
that APR 1.x has never been supported by an httpd release to date. It's
really only httpd/APR developers who are likely to get into this
situation.
Joe Orton wrote:
If some random user has APR 1.1 installed in /usr/local/apr, and builds
httpd 2.2 with --prefix=/usr/local/httpd-2.2, it would be a Bad Thing
(and certainly, very surprising behaviour) if that httpd install went
ahead and silently upgraded that APR install.
AGREED! Never
torsdagen den 1 december 2005 07.54 skrev Roy T. Fielding:
On Nov 30, 2005, at 10:12 PM, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
I'm 100% conviced next to nobody on this list has been developing
and testing
httpd-2.2/apr-1.2 without their own in-tree tweaks. I'm as guilty
as anyone.
So we've
On Thursday 01 December 2005 14:47, Oden Eriksson wrote:
I added mysql support in apr-util-1.2.2 as per INSTALL.MySQL as a
conditional build switch in our rpm package, that was only possible after
doing a lot of hacks.
Are those hacks anything we/I should know about and fix, or are they
torsdagen den 1 december 2005 16.01 skrev Nick Kew:
On Thursday 01 December 2005 14:47, Oden Eriksson wrote:
I added mysql support in apr-util-1.2.2 as per INSTALL.MySQL as a
conditional build switch in our rpm package, that was only possible after
doing a lot of hacks.
Are those hacks
On 12/01/2005 08:15 AM, Sander Temme wrote:
On Nov 30, 2005, at 10:53 PM, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
[..cut..]
Is buildconf present? If the user runs it, does it corrupt the
unpacked tree?
If this is so, and it's broken, then perhaps remove buildconf
throughout the
tree, and
Ruediger Pluem wrote:
BTW: buildconf is also used by the rpm spec file that is delivered with the tar
ball.
To be honest I don't think the rpm build script needs to run buildconf,
it seems to be a hangup from when the spec file was the Redhat one, and
they needed to do custom stuff, all of
On 12/01/2005 10:01 PM, Graham Leggett wrote:
Ruediger Pluem wrote:
BTW: buildconf is also used by the rpm spec file that is delivered
with the tar ball.
To be honest I don't think the rpm build script needs to run buildconf,
it seems to be a hangup from when the spec file was the
Joe Orton wrote:
It's pretty silly for anybody to suddenly wake up and declare some
random bug as a showstopper for 2.2. Nobody has cared enough about the
problem to fix it in the six months and four(?) 2.1.x alpha/beta
releases that mod_dbd has been in the tree. So it clearly isn't really
Jim Jagielski wrote:
Joe Orton wrote:
Win32 is not special. It's a second-class citizen if anything because
it gets so little developer attention.
Now *that's* a statement for the Release Notes :)
Absolutely, add to this list AIX, OS2, Netware, BeOS, HPUX and many others.
Not to mention
Joost de Heer wrote:
Win32 is not special. It's a second-class citizen if anything because
it gets so little developer attention.
And how many people compile the thing on Windows anyway, except the msi
builder? My guess is that I need about 2 hands to count them
Au contrare, I get
Once 2.2 is released we'll be working to use it -- and distribute it
with our products -- on Windows, Solaris, and AIX.
I throw in patches relevant to these platforms when possible, but I
don't have the time or interest in native (non-Java) code anymore to
help out more.
--
Jess Holle
On Wed, Nov 30, 2005 at 09:22:58PM +, Nick Kew wrote:
Can someone clarify: what happens *by default* if APR 1.0/1.1 is
found on a target machine? If it tries to build against that, I'd
support a -1. If it does something sensible - which could be emitting
an error message and refusing to
Nick Kew wrote:
I diskile bundling APR, and dislike even more bundling third-party libs
like expat and pcre. But I thought I/we had just lost that argument
with louder voices.
We lost the argument over pcre; our requirement is apparently just a little
to particular to have the user obtain
On Wed, Nov 30, 2005 at 02:43:24PM -0600, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
Exactly. I've stopped testing httpd-2.1.x because there was nobody
interested in testing apr-iconv 1.1.1, a prereq to httpd-2.1/2.2.
Without any community interest, httpd on Win32 is clearly my toy, not
a project port.
It
Build the php5apache2.dll ( php 5.1.1 apache2handler) with 2.2.0 on Win32.
No issues.
Steffen
Colm MacCarthaigh wrote:
On Wed, Nov 30, 2005 at 02:43:24PM -0600, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
It was hardly nobody, I may be shoddily inexperienced with the win32
port, but I did go to the trouble of testing apr-iconv on win32 and have
been regularly building 2.1/2.2 on win32 to make sure it
On 11/30/05, William A. Rowe, Jr. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Colm MacCarthaigh wrote:
On Wed, Nov 30, 2005 at 02:43:24PM -0600, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
It was hardly nobody, I may be shoddily inexperienced with the win32
port, but I did go to the trouble of testing apr-iconv on win32
Olaf van der Spek wrote:
Wouldn't it help if (beta) binaries are posted to
http://httpd.apache.org/download.cgi?
In general yes. In the case I mentioned, NO - you cannot post a candidate
which hasn't received 3 +1's, and you certainly cannot push it out to the
mirrors.
But our alphas/betas
Colm MacCarthaigh wrote:
On Wed, Nov 30, 2005 at 09:22:58PM +, Nick Kew wrote:
Can someone clarify: what happens *by default* if APR 1.0/1.1 is
found on a target machine? If it tries to build against that, I'd
support a -1. If it does something sensible - which could be emitting
an error
Colm MacCarthaigh wrote:
On Wed, Nov 30, 2005 at 09:22:58PM +, Nick Kew wrote:
Can someone clarify: what happens *by default* if APR 1.0/1.1 is
found on a target machine? If it tries to build against that, I'd
support a -1. If it does something sensible - which could be emitting
an error
On Wed, Nov 30, 2005 at 06:33:51PM -0600, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
Ok, so explain to me why we wasted a MB or two distributing srclib/apr/
and srclib/apr-util/ when the result is;
That's not the result when you don't have apr/apu 1.x [x:2] installed.
apr and apr-util 1.2 are bundled for
On Wed, Nov 30, 2005 at 06:39:30PM -0600, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
Ok, now what the heck?
Looks like you've pointed the --with-apr options at trees which have
been built, but arn't installed targets. find_apr.m4 tests for
bin/apr-1-config
--
Colm MacCárthaighPublic
On Thu, Dec 01, 2005 at 12:59:12AM +, Colm MacCarthaigh wrote:
On Wed, Nov 30, 2005 at 06:39:30PM -0600, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
Ok, now what the heck?
Looks like you've pointed the --with-apr options at trees which have
been built, but arn't installed targets. find_apr.m4 tests for
Colm MacCarthaigh wrote:
If apr 1.0 or 1.1 happen to be installed, I don't see why it's not
reasonable to fail to configure. The administrator may intend to link
against the system version, they may not want httpd having its own
libapr. And they're the only people capable of making that decision
On Wed, Nov 30, 2005 at 07:10:37PM -0600, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
* admins who install 1.1 for some specific reason are responsible to
ensure they deal with the new package correctly (e.g., we give them
a message upon configure Found old APR 1.1.0, installing APR 1.2.2
for you
On Nov 30, 2005, at 4:39 PM, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
./configure --prefix=/usr/local --with-apr=srclib/apr --with-apr-
util=srclib/apr-util
checking for chosen layout... Apache
[...]
checking for APR version 1.2.0 or later... yes
checking for APR-util version 1.2.0 or later... no
On Thu, Dec 01, 2005 at 01:25:38AM +, Colm MacCarthaigh wrote:
There's no reason why this can't be fixed during 2.2, but with a months
old issue, and no sign of a patch, should it hold up a GA?
No way. -- justin
Sander Temme wrote:
On Nov 30, 2005, at 4:39 PM, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
./configure --prefix=/usr/local --with-apr=srclib/apr --with-apr-
util=srclib/apr-util
checking for chosen layout... Apache
[...]
checking for APR version 1.2.0 or later... yes
checking for APR-util version 1.2.0 or
Colm MacCarthaigh wrote:
There's no reason why this can't be fixed during 2.2, but with a months
old issue, and no sign of a patch, should it hold up a GA?
I'm 100% conviced next to nobody on this list has been developing and testing
httpd-2.2/apr-1.2 without their own in-tree tweaks. I'm as
On Nov 30, 2005, at 10:10 PM, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
Sander Temme wrote:
On Nov 30, 2005, at 4:39 PM, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
./configure --prefix=/usr/local --with-apr=srclib/apr --with-apr-
util=srclib/apr-util
checking for chosen layout... Apache
[...]
checking for APR version
On Nov 30, 2005, at 10:12 PM, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
I'm 100% conviced next to nobody on this list has been developing
and testing
httpd-2.2/apr-1.2 without their own in-tree tweaks. I'm as guilty
as anyone.
So we've been compiling and improving the code, but the build/
install
Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
On Wed, Nov 30, 2005 at 10:35:07PM -0800, Sander Temme wrote:
I'm looking at this. If you give that apu buildconf the right --with-
apr parameter, buildconf completes. The problem is, if the
Just to reiterate - buildconf is not necessary for users to run.
On Nov 30, 2005, at 10:53 PM, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
On Wed, Nov 30, 2005 at 10:35:07PM -0800, Sander Temme wrote:
I'm looking at this. If you give that apu buildconf the right --
with- apr parameter, buildconf completes. The problem is, if the
Just to
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Nov 28, 2005, at 11:55 PM, Paul Querna wrote:
Available from:
http://people.apache.org/~pquerna/dev/httpd-2.2.0/
Please vote on releasing as GA/Stable.
+1 for release as 2.2.0. I have verified the signatures, compared
the contents, diffed
On Thu, Dec 01, 2005 at 12:53:22AM -0600, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
Is buildconf present? If the user runs it, does it corrupt the unpacked
tree?
Um.
Have you even *tried* to run './buildconf' in an extracted httpd 2.2.0
tarball? I have - guess what? It works just fine. Therefore, there
Paul Querna wrote:
These tarballs are Identical to 2.1.10 except for two changes:
* include/ap_release.h Updated to be 2.2.0-release
* The root directory was changed from httpd-2.1.10 to httpd-2.2.0
Okay, I lied, slightly:
* svn r348009: Added AP_DECLARE to mod_dbd exported functions. No
On Mon, Nov 28, 2005 at 11:55:48PM -0800, Paul Querna wrote:
These tarballs are Identical to 2.1.10 except for two changes:
* include/ap_release.h Updated to be 2.2.0-release
* The root directory was changed from httpd-2.1.10 to httpd-2.2.0
Available from:
Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
On Mon, Nov 28, 2005 at 11:55:48PM -0800, Paul Querna wrote:
These tarballs are Identical to 2.1.10 except for two changes:
* include/ap_release.h Updated to be 2.2.0-release
* The root directory was changed from httpd-2.1.10 to httpd-2.2.0
Available from:
Available from:
http://people.apache.org/~pquerna/dev/httpd-2.2.0/
FWIW, the MIME types for the .md5 files seem to be wrong.
The .bz2.md5 is served as application/x-tar and .gz.md5 is
application/x-gzip.
Luc
On Tuesday 29 November 2005 08:32, Paul Querna wrote:
Paul Querna wrote:
These tarballs are Identical to 2.1.10 except for two changes:
* include/ap_release.h Updated to be 2.2.0-release
* The root directory was changed from httpd-2.1.10 to httpd-2.2.0
Okay, I lied, slightly:
* svn
On Mon, Nov 28, 2005 at 11:55:48PM -0800, Paul Querna wrote:
These tarballs are Identical to 2.1.10 except for two changes:
* include/ap_release.h Updated to be 2.2.0-release
* The root directory was changed from httpd-2.1.10 to httpd-2.2.0
Available from:
On 11/29/05, Paul Querna [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Paul Querna wrote:
These tarballs are Identical to 2.1.10 except for two changes:
* include/ap_release.h Updated to be 2.2.0-release
* The root directory was changed from httpd-2.1.10 to httpd-2.2.0
Okay, I lied, slightly:
Shouldn't the
I'm no commiter but must concur -- until the build runs cleanly on
Windows 2.2.0 should not go out the door.
Not everyone may like it, but Windows is a major Apache usage platform
these days.
--
Jess Holle
Nick Kew wrote:
On Tuesday 29 November 2005 08:32, Paul Querna wrote:
On Tue, Nov 29, 2005 at 05:53:52AM -0600, Jess Holle wrote:
I'm no commiter but must concur -- until the build runs cleanly on
Windows 2.2.0 should not go out the door.
Not everyone may like it, but Windows is a major Apache usage platform
these days.
mod_dbd isn't included in the win32
Colm MacCarthaigh wrote:
On Tue, Nov 29, 2005 at 05:53:52AM -0600, Jess Holle wrote:
I'm no commiter but must concur -- until the build runs cleanly on
Windows 2.2.0 should not go out the door.
Not everyone may like it, but Windows is a major Apache usage platform
these days.
-
From: Colm MacCarthaigh [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: dev@httpd.apache.org
Sent: Tuesday, November 29, 2005 1:24 PM
Subject: Re: [vote] 2.2.0 tarballs
On Tue, Nov 29, 2005 at 05:53:52AM -0600, Jess Holle wrote:
I'm no commiter but must concur -- until the build runs cleanly on
Windows 2.2.0
Steffen wrote:
Build with no issue here on Windows, except mod_authn_db and dmod_dbd.
In the change log:
*) Add mod_authn_dbd (SQL-based authentication) [Nick Kew]
I agree with Jesse:
2.2.0 should not go out the door until we can build mod_authn_db and mod_dbd
on windows.
+1
--
On Tue, Nov 29, 2005 at 02:03:59PM +0100, Steffen wrote:
Build with no issue here on Windows, except mod_authn_db and dmod_dbd.
How are you building these? there's no .dsp file for either, nor are
they in Makefile.win.
The distributed source tree not building is one thing, but modules
people
On Tuesday 29 November 2005 12:24, Colm MacCarthaigh wrote:
On Tue, Nov 29, 2005 at 05:53:52AM -0600, Jess Holle wrote:
I'm no commiter but must concur -- until the build runs cleanly on
Windows 2.2.0 should not go out the door.
Not everyone may like it, but Windows is a major Apache
,
mod_fcgid and mod_log_rotate), see www.apachelounge.com.
Steffen
- Original Message -
From: Nick Kew [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: dev@httpd.apache.org
Sent: Tuesday, November 29, 2005 2:25 PM
Subject: Re: [vote] 2.2.0 tarballs
On Tuesday 29 November 2005 12:24, Colm MacCarthaigh wrote
On Tue, Nov 29, 2005 at 02:03:59PM +0100, Steffen wrote:
Build with no issue here on Windows, except mod_authn_db and dmod_dbd.
In the change log:
*) Add mod_authn_dbd (SQL-based authentication) [Nick Kew]
I agree with Jesse:
2.2.0 should not go out the door until we can build
Joe Orton wrote:
On Tue, Nov 29, 2005 at 02:03:59PM +0100, Steffen wrote:
Build with no issue here on Windows, except mod_authn_db and dmod_dbd.
In the change log:
*) Add mod_authn_dbd (SQL-based authentication) [Nick Kew]
I agree with Jesse:
2.2.0 should not go out the door
Joe Orton wrote:
On Tue, Nov 29, 2005 at 02:03:59PM +0100, Steffen wrote:
Build with no issue here on Windows, except mod_authn_db and dmod_dbd.
In the change log:
*) Add mod_authn_dbd (SQL-based authentication) [Nick Kew]
I agree with Jesse:
2.2.0 should not go out the door
Jim Jagielski wrote:
Joe Orton wrote:
On Tue, Nov 29, 2005 at 02:03:59PM +0100, Steffen wrote:
Build with no issue here on Windows, except mod_authn_db and dmod_dbd.
In the change log:
*) Add mod_authn_dbd (SQL-based authentication) [Nick Kew]
I agree with Jesse:
2.2.0 should not
On Tuesday 29 November 2005 15:03, Joe Orton wrote:
On Tue, Nov 29, 2005 at 02:03:59PM +0100, Steffen wrote:
Build with no issue here on Windows, except mod_authn_db and dmod_dbd.
In the change log:
*) Add mod_authn_dbd (SQL-based authentication) [Nick Kew]
I agree with Jesse:
On Tue, Nov 29, 2005 at 10:16:04AM -0500, Jim Jagielski wrote:
mod_dbd is explicitly mentioned as a new feature of 2.2
and, therefore, a compelling reason to upgrade. Either
we stop refering to mod_dbd as something special enough
to warrant special attention as a core enhancement or
we fix it
Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
On Tue, Nov 29, 2005 at 10:16:04AM -0500, Jim Jagielski wrote:
mod_dbd is explicitly mentioned as a new feature of 2.2
and, therefore, a compelling reason to upgrade. Either
we stop refering to mod_dbd as something special enough
to warrant special attention as
On Tue, Nov 29, 2005 at 10:28:43AM -0500, Jim Jagielski wrote:
I would agree, as long as we remove it for the What's New
pages until it actually works and builds.
My point, obviously, was that we can't have it both ways and
say mod_dbd is great and a new core enhancement if it doesn't
even
On 11/29/05, Justin Erenkrantz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, Nov 29, 2005 at 10:28:43AM -0500, Jim Jagielski wrote:
I would agree, as long as we remove it for the What's New
pages until it actually works and builds.
My point, obviously, was that we can't have it both ways and
say
On Nov 29, 2005, at 2:55 AM, Paul Querna wrote:
These tarballs are Identical to 2.1.10 except for two changes:
* include/ap_release.h Updated to be 2.2.0-release
* The root directory was changed from httpd-2.1.10 to httpd-2.2.0
Available from:
On Tue, Nov 29, 2005 at 10:28:43AM -0500, Jim Jagielski wrote:
Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
On Tue, Nov 29, 2005 at 10:16:04AM -0500, Jim Jagielski wrote:
mod_dbd is explicitly mentioned as a new feature of 2.2
and, therefore, a compelling reason to upgrade. Either
we stop refering to
On Tue, Nov 29, 2005 at 04:38:01PM +0100, Olaf van der Spek wrote:
Why not add a special 'except on Windows' clause to that page?
It's not like it'll never work. Someone will get around to fixing it.
IMHO, this is exactly what release notes are for. -- justin
On Tuesday 29 November 2005 15:22, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
We can note it in the release
notes and move along. -- justin
Indeed, that's fine by me.
I've just committed a documentation update to Trunk.
If we backport that to branch-2.2, I'll withdraw my objections.
--
Nick Kew
@httpd.apache.org; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, November 29, 2005 4:22 PM
Subject: Re: [vote] 2.2.0 tarballs
On Tue, Nov 29, 2005 at 10:16:04AM -0500, Jim Jagielski wrote:
mod_dbd is explicitly mentioned as a new feature of 2.2
and, therefore, a compelling reason to upgrade. Either
we stop refering
On Nov 29, 2005, at 10:36 AM, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
On Tue, Nov 29, 2005 at 10:28:43AM -0500, Jim Jagielski wrote:
I would agree, as long as we remove it for the What's New
pages until it actually works and builds.
My point, obviously, was that we can't have it both ways and
say mod_dbd
Joe Orton wrote:
On Tue, Nov 29, 2005 at 10:28:43AM -0500, Jim Jagielski wrote:
Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
On Tue, Nov 29, 2005 at 10:16:04AM -0500, Jim Jagielski wrote:
mod_dbd is explicitly mentioned as a new feature of 2.2
and, therefore, a compelling reason to upgrade. Either
On Tue, Nov 29, 2005 at 10:46:55AM -0500, Jim Jagielski wrote:
Either we:
1. Remove it from the feature list
2. Keep it in there, but document that it doesn't
build under Win32
3. Someone who knows Win32 adds whatever magic is required
to have it build.
#2 would be in the
Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
On Tue, Nov 29, 2005 at 10:46:55AM -0500, Jim Jagielski wrote:
Either we:
1. Remove it from the feature list
2. Keep it in there, but document that it doesn't
build under Win32
3. Someone who knows Win32 adds whatever magic is required
to
On Tue, Nov 29, 2005 at 10:56:56AM -0500, Jim Jagielski wrote:
#2 would be in the release notes.
I don't think anyone has said we wouldn't note it.
That wasn't clear at the start of this thread. There was a tone
of I don't care, that's no reason to stop the release and
the impression
On Tue, Nov 29, 2005 at 03:20:50PM +, Nick Kew wrote:
As for suddenly waking up, please note the date on
http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=apache-httpd-devm=113266737311013w=2
mod_dbd compiles fine for me when I remove the AP_DECLARE wrappers
actually. But that might break the symbol export
Win32 is not special. It's a second-class citizen if anything because
it gets so little developer attention.
And how many people compile the thing on Windows anyway, except the msi
builder? My guess is that I need about 2 hands to count them
Joost
I didn't expect the NetWare fixes to go in until 2.2.1. Thanks for
including them.
+1 GA (NetWare)
Brad
On 11/29/2005 at 1:32:32 am, in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED],
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Paul Querna wrote:
These tarballs are Identical to 2.1.10 except for two changes:
*
We don't until the first GA release, but from there on out we compile
just about every release ourselves as we often end up applying our own
patches when we find issues (submitting them back, of course) and we do
our own cross-platform installation packaging, automated configuration,
etc, of
Paul Querna wrote:
Paul Querna wrote:
These tarballs are Identical to 2.1.10 except for two changes:
* include/ap_release.h Updated to be 2.2.0-release
* The root directory was changed from httpd-2.1.10 to httpd-2.2.0
Okay, I lied, slightly:
* svn r348009: Added AP_DECLARE to mod_dbd
On Tue, Nov 29, 2005 at 09:30:30AM -0800, Paul Querna wrote:
My vote, +1 for GA, tested lightly on FreeBSD 5.4/x86, and OSX
10.4.3/ppc. Also based on diff of the 2.1.10 and 2.2.0 tarballs.
+1 here too, tested on ubuntu.
--
Colm MacCárthaighPublic Key: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Tue, Nov 29, 2005 at 05:53:52AM -0600, Jess Holle wrote:
I'm no commiter but must concur -- until the build runs cleanly on
Windows 2.2.0 should not go out the door.
Not everyone may like it, but Windows is a major Apache usage platform
these days.
O.k., can any win32 users please test
+1 on Mac OS.
-wsv
On Nov 28, 2005, at 11:55 PM, Paul Querna wrote:
These tarballs are Identical to 2.1.10 except for two changes:
* include/ap_release.h Updated to be 2.2.0-release
* The root directory was changed from httpd-2.1.10 to httpd-2.2.0
Available from:
tisdagen den 29 november 2005 08.55 skrev Paul Querna:
These tarballs are Identical to 2.1.10 except for two changes:
* include/ap_release.h Updated to be 2.2.0-release
* The root directory was changed from httpd-2.1.10 to httpd-2.2.0
Available from:
These tarballs are Identical to 2.1.10 except for two changes:
* include/ap_release.h Updated to be 2.2.0-release
* The root directory was changed from httpd-2.1.10 to httpd-2.2.0
Available from:
http://people.apache.org/~pquerna/dev/httpd-2.2.0/
Please vote on releasing as GA/Stable.
I am
85 matches
Mail list logo
