You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@httpd.apache.org by "William A. Rowe, Jr." <wr...@rowe-clan.net> on 2004/04/12 21:06:06 UTC
Re: Any 1.3.30 tarball feeback??
At 12:33 PM 4/12/2004, Jim Jagielski wrote:
>Any comments on the 1.3.30 release candidate tarball?
The mod_rewrite.dsw was patched to find the ws2_32.lib required
when we modified rewrite. Unfortunately, the .mak file was not
updated at the same time. IDE builds (what I tested a week ago)
work just fine, but command line builds on win32 were broke.
My inclination, if nobody disagrees, is to commit the .mak file
updates and push the tag, rerolling those files into the 1.3.30 .tar.gz
and including them as fixed in the .msi/.exe win32 installers.
Being derrived files which are nothing more than gatekeepers (it builds
or it doesn't, and does not change functionality) I'm not seeing a reason
to toss this tag.
Thoughts?
Bill
Re: Any 1.3.30 tarball feeback??
Posted by Jim Jagielski <ji...@jaguNET.com>.
Hmmm... I feel that this is safe... If you commit I'll
reTAG and reroll.
PS: The real reason I don't think we should toss the tag
is that this only affect Win people, a small minority
in the 1.3 world. So the diffs between the current
tarball (should it leak) and this one would be
minimal and limited to Win people.
On Apr 12, 2004, at 3:06 PM, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
> At 12:33 PM 4/12/2004, Jim Jagielski wrote:
>> Any comments on the 1.3.30 release candidate tarball?
>
> The mod_rewrite.dsw was patched to find the ws2_32.lib required
> when we modified rewrite. Unfortunately, the .mak file was not
> updated at the same time. IDE builds (what I tested a week ago)
> work just fine, but command line builds on win32 were broke.
>
> My inclination, if nobody disagrees, is to commit the .mak file
> updates and push the tag, rerolling those files into the 1.3.30 .tar.gz
> and including them as fixed in the .msi/.exe win32 installers.
>
> Being derrived files which are nothing more than gatekeepers (it builds
> or it doesn't, and does not change functionality) I'm not seeing a
> reason
> to toss this tag.
>
> Thoughts?
>
> Bill
>
>
--
=======================================================================
Jim Jagielski [|] jim@jaguNET.com [|] http://www.jaguNET.com/
"A society that will trade a little liberty for a little order
will lose both and deserve neither" - T.Jefferson