Status of RC3...

[David Reid <da...@jetnet.co.uk>]

After all the events of last week (which have left a bit of a bad taste) I
thought that allowing things to settle for a day or two would be a good
thing. My plan had been to roll RC3 tomorrow, but work have just called me
out!

So, all being well I'll have enough net access to roll RC3 Mon/Tues. If not
I'll do it on Thursday.

Presently I'm not aware of a huge number of changed files for RC3.

Are we happy that installing only the versioned config files is the right
thing to do and that we have it all working now?

Any thoughts on the proposed FreeBSD change?

Will: are you now happy and will you commit the change to stop installing
the header files for apr-iconv? That seems to be all we need to do initially
to make it a private interface.

david

Re: Status of RC3...

[David Reid <da...@jetnet.co.uk>]

> --On Sunday, July 4, 2004 6:48 PM +0100 David Reid <da...@jetnet.co.uk>
wrote:
>
> > Any thoughts on the proposed FreeBSD change?
>
> I think it should go into 1.0 (it's now in HEAD).  It's one less thing for
the
> FreeBSD port people to have to handle locally.  Now that I understand
where
> the 502102 is documented (Thanks Craig!), it's a fairly safe change to
make.
>
> Just to be safe, I'll fire up some builds on some older FreeBSD boxes to
make
> sure the THREAD_SAFE and _REENTRANT addition don't break anything for the
> older boxes.  -- justin

Agreed. Thanks Justin.

david

Re: Status of RC3...

[Justin Erenkrantz <ju...@erenkrantz.com>]

--On Sunday, July 4, 2004 6:48 PM +0100 David Reid <da...@jetnet.co.uk> wrote:

> Any thoughts on the proposed FreeBSD change?

I think it should go into 1.0 (it's now in HEAD).  It's one less thing for the 
FreeBSD port people to have to handle locally.  Now that I understand where 
the 502102 is documented (Thanks Craig!), it's a fairly safe change to make.

Just to be safe, I'll fire up some builds on some older FreeBSD boxes to make 
sure the THREAD_SAFE and _REENTRANT addition don't break anything for the 
older boxes.  -- justin

Re: Status of RC3...

[Cliff Woolley <jw...@virginia.edu>]

On Sun, 4 Jul 2004, David Reid wrote:

> So, all being well I'll have enough net access to roll RC3 Mon/Tues. If not
> I'll do it on Thursday.

Sounds good to me... thanks David!

--JustCliff

Re: Status of RC3...

[David Reid <da...@jetnet.co.uk>]

> David Reid wrote:
>
> >Will: are you now happy and will you commit the change to stop installing
> >the header files for apr-iconv? That seems to be all we need to do
initially
> >to make it a private interface.
> >
> >
> I just committed a change to the apr-iconv Makefile.in to stop
> installing the headers. Since the Unix and Netware apr-util builds don't
> use apr-iconv anyway, I don't think we need any other changes now. The
> Windows build scripts already weren't installing them, and httpd on
> Windows doesn't inetall them, either. What I'm not quite sure about now
> is where to actually document that apr-iconv is private.
>
> -- Brane

Thanks Brane. I'll roll apr-iconv at the same time I do the others.

david

Re: Status of RC3...

[Branko Čibej <br...@xbc.nu>]

David Reid wrote:

>Will: are you now happy and will you commit the change to stop installing
>the header files for apr-iconv? That seems to be all we need to do initially
>to make it a private interface.
>  
>
I just committed a change to the apr-iconv Makefile.in to stop 
installing the headers. Since the Unix and Netware apr-util builds don't 
use apr-iconv anyway, I don't think we need any other changes now. The 
Windows build scripts already weren't installing them, and httpd on 
Windows doesn't inetall them, either. What I'm not quite sure about now 
is where to actually document that apr-iconv is private.

-- Brane