Backport Fixes to libapr[util...].dll to 0.9 too? (was: Re: 1.2?)

["William A. Rowe, Jr." <wr...@rowe-clan.net>]

>Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
>>--On Monday, March 7, 2005 10:47 PM -0600 "William A. Rowe, Jr." <wr...@rowe-clan.net> wrote:
>>
>>>I'd committed a patch to fix the version resource tag, it seems
>>>we were broken when trying to build non-dev flavors of the .dll's.
>>
>>I would go for 1.1.1 as I don't believe we're ready for a 1.2.0 that includes apr_dbd just yet.

Backporting to 1.1 ASAP, then!  A related question, 1.1(.1) is a
drop-in replacement for anyone running APR 1.0.  But do we backport
this fix to 0.9 since it is it's own flavor?

Bill

Re: Backport Fixes to libapr[util...].dll to 0.9 too? (was: Re: 1.2?)

["William A. Rowe, Jr." <wr...@rowe-clan.net>]

Only busted for 'releases'.

Because httpd kept picking up -dev tags, this was never noted.

At 12:44 AM 3/11/2005, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
>--On Thursday, March 10, 2005 5:55 PM -0600 "William A. Rowe, Jr." <wr...@rowe-clan.net> wrote:
>
>>Backporting to 1.1 ASAP, then!  A related question, 1.1(.1) is a
>>drop-in replacement for anyone running APR 1.0.  But do we backport
>>this fix to 0.9 since it is it's own flavor?
>
>Is 0.9.x busted too?  I hadn't seen any complaints for 0.9.x...  -- justin

Re: Backport Fixes to libapr[util...].dll to 0.9 too? (was: Re: 1.2?)

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

--On Thursday, March 10, 2005 5:55 PM -0600 "William A. Rowe, Jr." 
<wr...@rowe-clan.net> wrote:

> Backporting to 1.1 ASAP, then!  A related question, 1.1(.1) is a
> drop-in replacement for anyone running APR 1.0.  But do we backport
> this fix to 0.9 since it is it's own flavor?

Is 0.9.x busted too?  I hadn't seen any complaints for 0.9.x...  -- justin