Another reason to go for separate APR and APR-util packages ! ------------------ >> Re: httpd 2.2.8 segfaults >> >> On 02/21/2008 10:09 PM, Niklas Edmundsson wrote: >>> On Wed, 20 Feb 2008, Niklas Edmundsson wrote: >>> >>>> In any case, I should probably try to figure out how to reproduce this >>>> thing. All coredumps I've looked at have been when serving DVD images, >>>> which of course works flawlessly when I try it... >>> >>> OK, I've been able to reproduce this, and it looks really bad because: >> >> Could you please check if backing out the following patch out of apr-util >> 'fixes' the problem: >> >> http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/apr/apr-util/branches/1.2.x/buckets/apr_brigade.c?r1=232557&r2=588057
>That's indeed the culprit. -------------------- If we had separate APR and APR-util packages, I could have upgraded just HTTPD to the latest version (2.2.8) without upgrading APR and APR-util. Henry, I think APR and APR-util should be part of the Web Stack project and the packages should be delivered into SFW. When SQLite3 is integrated and is installed on the build m/cs, can't we add the appropriate APR-util configure option to support it. Thanks, Seema. Henry Jen wrote: > Thanks for the update, Harry. > > Based on the information so far, we got: > > 1. Apache2 is delivered within SFW, which depends on libapr-1 and > libaprutil-1 that is currently bundled, and we would like to have > those two libs as separate packages. > 2. I would need libaprutil-1 build with sqlite3 support, that makes > libaprutil-1 depends on SQLite3. > 3. Firefox3 depends on SQLite3 as well, which is going to be delivered > from JDK in the future. > > What would you recommend on how to deliver those packages? What is > current practice when there are dependencies across different > consolidations? > > Personally, I think pkgbase project might be the right place for > SQLite3, libapr, libaprutil. But I am not sure how and when will the > project be integrated into Nevada. > > Cheers, > Henry > > > > On Jan 26, 2008 9:19 PM, Harry Lu <Harry.Lu at sun.com> wrote: >> Moinak Ghosh : >> >> David.Comay at Sun.COM wrote: >> >> >> >> The spec file is in JDS repo, but is not in nv80, not sure when will >> it be included. I don't know what do you mean by consolidation-private >> dependency(I need to get educated on Consolidations and Solaris >> development process). What I care is that sqlite3 to be there for both >> build and runtime. >> >> >> Again, the existence of a spec file does not necessarily mean that the >> component is actually part of OpenSolaris or will be part of >> OpenSolaris. At the moment, there are no versions of SQLite in >> OpenSolaris today except for private copies being used by a number of >> components (such as SMF). I know of an effort within Sun to provide a >> public version but that neither is available yet nor has even been >> ARCed (although it's my expectation that it too will come out of SFW). >> >> >> Halton Huo recently moved SUNWsqlite to JDS Vermillion dock from SFE: >> >> http://cvs.opensolaris.org/source/xref/jds/spec-files/trunk/SUNWsqlite.spec >> >> The move is due to Firefox 3 is included in JDS Vermilion dock now and >> SQLite3 is a dependency of Firefox 3. >> >> The ARC one pager of SQLite 3 is under internal review for now. But as >> Firefox 3 GA date is not decided yet, when SQLite 3 will be integrated into >> Nevada is still unknown. >> >> Regards, >> Harry >> >> Regards, >> Moinak. >> >> _______________________________________________ >> desktop-discuss mailing list >> desktop-discuss at opensolaris.org >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> desktop-discuss mailing list >> desktop-discuss at opensolaris.org >> > _______________________________________________ > > > webstack-discuss mailing list > webstack-discuss at opensolaris.org > http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/webstack-discuss
