You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to cvs@httpd.apache.org by ia...@apache.org on 2002/08/01 18:42:34 UTC
cvs commit: httpd-2.0/build httpd_roll_release
ianh 2002/08/01 09:42:33
Modified: build httpd_roll_release
Log:
we need apr-iconv now
Revision Changes Path
1.12 +2 -2 httpd-2.0/build/httpd_roll_release
Index: httpd_roll_release
===================================================================
RCS file: /home/cvs/httpd-2.0/build/httpd_roll_release,v
retrieving revision 1.11
retrieving revision 1.12
diff -u -r1.11 -r1.12
--- httpd_roll_release 16 Jul 2002 21:43:17 -0000 1.11
+++ httpd_roll_release 1 Aug 2002 16:42:33 -0000 1.12
@@ -30,8 +30,8 @@
echo Checking out httpd-2.0 > $LOG_NAME
cvs checkout -r $TAG -d $WORKING_DIR $REPO >> $LOG_NAME
cd $WORKING_DIR/srclib
-echo "Checking out apr and apr-util" >> $LOG_NAME
-cvs checkout -r $TAG apr apr-util >> $LOG_NAME
+echo "Checking out apr, apr-iconv and apr-util" >> $LOG_NAME
+cvs checkout -r $TAG apr apr-iconv apr-util >> $LOG_NAME
cd $START_DIR/$WORKING_DIR
# Make sure the master site's FAQ is up-to-date. It doesn't hurt to do this
RE: cvs commit: httpd-2.0/build httpd_roll_release
Posted by Ryan Bloom <rb...@covalent.net>.
> > > Even if we don't build it, this is extremely good practice that
the
> folks
> > > rolling and releasing the tarball TAG the apr-iconv tree in sync
with
> > > the current apr and apr-util trees..
> >
> >I completely disagree. The problem is that the httpd_roll_release
> >script is for rolling httpd releases, not APR releases. This change
> >doesn't help people realize that they have to tag APR-iconv before
they
> >can release httpd.
>
> Amazing that we tag APR at all, no?
That APR gets tagged with Apache, is a side-effect of not having
released APR yet, nothing more. In time, we won't tag APR with an
Apache tag.
> > I really agree with Cliff, the change to pull
> >apr-iconv out of APR is annoying, and it is going to cause problems.
I
> >understand that it is the "best" solution we have right now, it is
still
> >a bad solution.
>
> Of course it is bad. That's why I suggest a separate tarball for
iconv.
>
> But it doesn't matter, we need trees in-sync, so apr-iconv must be
tagged
> with apr's tags, from here forwards. If you want to do that as an
rtag,
> that would be fine too.
The other thing, is that httpd_roll_release doesn't do the tag, it
simply checks out the code that has already been tagged.
Ryan
RE: cvs commit: httpd-2.0/build httpd_roll_release
Posted by Ryan Bloom <rb...@covalent.net>.
> > > Even if we don't build it, this is extremely good practice that
the
> folks
> > > rolling and releasing the tarball TAG the apr-iconv tree in sync
with
> > > the current apr and apr-util trees..
> >
> >I completely disagree. The problem is that the httpd_roll_release
> >script is for rolling httpd releases, not APR releases. This change
> >doesn't help people realize that they have to tag APR-iconv before
they
> >can release httpd.
>
> Amazing that we tag APR at all, no?
That APR gets tagged with Apache, is a side-effect of not having
released APR yet, nothing more. In time, we won't tag APR with an
Apache tag.
> > I really agree with Cliff, the change to pull
> >apr-iconv out of APR is annoying, and it is going to cause problems.
I
> >understand that it is the "best" solution we have right now, it is
still
> >a bad solution.
>
> Of course it is bad. That's why I suggest a separate tarball for
iconv.
>
> But it doesn't matter, we need trees in-sync, so apr-iconv must be
tagged
> with apr's tags, from here forwards. If you want to do that as an
rtag,
> that would be fine too.
The other thing, is that httpd_roll_release doesn't do the tag, it
simply checks out the code that has already been tagged.
Ryan
RE: cvs commit: httpd-2.0/build httpd_roll_release
Posted by "William A. Rowe, Jr." <wr...@rowe-clan.net>.
At 03:32 PM 8/1/2002, Ryan Bloom wrote:
> > From: William A. Rowe, Jr. [mailto:wrowe@rowe-clan.net]
> >
> > At 11:42 AM 8/1/2002, you wrote:
> > >ianh 2002/08/01 09:42:33
> > >
> > > Modified: build httpd_roll_release
> > > Log:
> > > we need apr-iconv now
> >
> > Even if we don't build it, this is extremely good practice that the folks
> > rolling and releasing the tarball TAG the apr-iconv tree in sync with
> > the current apr and apr-util trees..
>
>I completely disagree. The problem is that the httpd_roll_release
>script is for rolling httpd releases, not APR releases. This change
>doesn't help people realize that they have to tag APR-iconv before they
>can release httpd.
Amazing that we tag APR at all, no?
> I really agree with Cliff, the change to pull
>apr-iconv out of APR is annoying, and it is going to cause problems. I
>understand that it is the "best" solution we have right now, it is still
>a bad solution.
Of course it is bad. That's why I suggest a separate tarball for iconv.
But it doesn't matter, we need trees in-sync, so apr-iconv must be tagged
with apr's tags, from here forwards. If you want to do that as an rtag,
that would be fine too.
Bill
RE: cvs commit: httpd-2.0/build httpd_roll_release
Posted by "William A. Rowe, Jr." <wr...@rowe-clan.net>.
At 03:32 PM 8/1/2002, Ryan Bloom wrote:
> > From: William A. Rowe, Jr. [mailto:wrowe@rowe-clan.net]
> >
> > At 11:42 AM 8/1/2002, you wrote:
> > >ianh 2002/08/01 09:42:33
> > >
> > > Modified: build httpd_roll_release
> > > Log:
> > > we need apr-iconv now
> >
> > Even if we don't build it, this is extremely good practice that the folks
> > rolling and releasing the tarball TAG the apr-iconv tree in sync with
> > the current apr and apr-util trees..
>
>I completely disagree. The problem is that the httpd_roll_release
>script is for rolling httpd releases, not APR releases. This change
>doesn't help people realize that they have to tag APR-iconv before they
>can release httpd.
Amazing that we tag APR at all, no?
> I really agree with Cliff, the change to pull
>apr-iconv out of APR is annoying, and it is going to cause problems. I
>understand that it is the "best" solution we have right now, it is still
>a bad solution.
Of course it is bad. That's why I suggest a separate tarball for iconv.
But it doesn't matter, we need trees in-sync, so apr-iconv must be tagged
with apr's tags, from here forwards. If you want to do that as an rtag,
that would be fine too.
Bill
Re: cvs commit: httpd-2.0/build httpd_roll_release
Posted by "William A. Rowe, Jr." <wr...@rowe-clan.net>.
At 07:01 PM 8/2/2002, Ian Holsman wrote:
>William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
>>At 03:32 PM 8/1/2002, Ryan Bloom wrote:
>>> > From: William A. Rowe, Jr. [mailto:wrowe@rowe-clan.net]
>>> > At 11:42 AM 8/1/2002, you wrote:
>>> > >ianh 2002/08/01 09:42:33
>>> > >
>>> > > we need apr-iconv now
>>> >
>>> > Even if we don't build it, this is extremely good practice that the folks
>>> > rolling and releasing the tarball TAG the apr-iconv tree in sync with
>>> > the current apr and apr-util trees..
>>>
>>>I completely disagree. The problem is that the httpd_roll_release
>>>script is for rolling httpd releases, not APR releases. This change
>>>doesn't help people realize that they have to tag APR-iconv before they
>>>can release httpd.
>>
>>Of course it is bad. That's why I suggest a separate tarball for iconv.
>>But it doesn't matter, we need trees in-sync, so apr-iconv must be tagged
>>with apr's tags, from here forwards. If you want to do that as an rtag,
>>that would be fine too.
>
>ok.. so.. i'm not sure if this has been resolved.
>should we include the apr-iconv is the source distribution tarball,
>or only have it in the win32 zipfile. my personal opinion is that is
>should be in both, as some win32 users will just download the tarball and
>this would be confusing.
Win32 users that grab the tarball do so at their own peril anyways
[you cannot plug in lf-lineended files into microsoft's vc tools or ide.]
This should be a separate tarball for those interested in it for any
non-Unix platform anyways.
I promised my weekend to straighten out iconv/openssl/zlib/ldap
dependencies on win32. It will be a hack, but we won't require iconv.
And we still need to tag the puppy every time around, until [as rbb
points out] we use specific version tags of APR rather than an HTTPD
tag.
Bill
Re: cvs commit: httpd-2.0/build httpd_roll_release
Posted by "William A. Rowe, Jr." <wr...@rowe-clan.net>.
At 07:01 PM 8/2/2002, Ian Holsman wrote:
>William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
>>At 03:32 PM 8/1/2002, Ryan Bloom wrote:
>>> > From: William A. Rowe, Jr. [mailto:wrowe@rowe-clan.net]
>>> > At 11:42 AM 8/1/2002, you wrote:
>>> > >ianh 2002/08/01 09:42:33
>>> > >
>>> > > we need apr-iconv now
>>> >
>>> > Even if we don't build it, this is extremely good practice that the folks
>>> > rolling and releasing the tarball TAG the apr-iconv tree in sync with
>>> > the current apr and apr-util trees..
>>>
>>>I completely disagree. The problem is that the httpd_roll_release
>>>script is for rolling httpd releases, not APR releases. This change
>>>doesn't help people realize that they have to tag APR-iconv before they
>>>can release httpd.
>>
>>Of course it is bad. That's why I suggest a separate tarball for iconv.
>>But it doesn't matter, we need trees in-sync, so apr-iconv must be tagged
>>with apr's tags, from here forwards. If you want to do that as an rtag,
>>that would be fine too.
>
>ok.. so.. i'm not sure if this has been resolved.
>should we include the apr-iconv is the source distribution tarball,
>or only have it in the win32 zipfile. my personal opinion is that is
>should be in both, as some win32 users will just download the tarball and
>this would be confusing.
Win32 users that grab the tarball do so at their own peril anyways
[you cannot plug in lf-lineended files into microsoft's vc tools or ide.]
This should be a separate tarball for those interested in it for any
non-Unix platform anyways.
I promised my weekend to straighten out iconv/openssl/zlib/ldap
dependencies on win32. It will be a hack, but we won't require iconv.
And we still need to tag the puppy every time around, until [as rbb
points out] we use specific version tags of APR rather than an HTTPD
tag.
Bill
Re: cvs commit: httpd-2.0/build httpd_roll_release
Posted by Ian Holsman <ia...@apache.org>.
William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
> At 03:32 PM 8/1/2002, Ryan Bloom wrote:
>
>> > From: William A. Rowe, Jr. [mailto:wrowe@rowe-clan.net]
>> >
>> > At 11:42 AM 8/1/2002, you wrote:
>> > >ianh 2002/08/01 09:42:33
>> > >
>> > > Modified: build httpd_roll_release
>> > > Log:
>> > > we need apr-iconv now
>> >
>> > Even if we don't build it, this is extremely good practice that the
>> folks
>> > rolling and releasing the tarball TAG the apr-iconv tree in sync with
>> > the current apr and apr-util trees..
>>
>> I completely disagree. The problem is that the httpd_roll_release
>> script is for rolling httpd releases, not APR releases. This change
>> doesn't help people realize that they have to tag APR-iconv before they
>> can release httpd.
>
>
> Amazing that we tag APR at all, no?
>
>> I really agree with Cliff, the change to pull
>> apr-iconv out of APR is annoying, and it is going to cause problems. I
>> understand that it is the "best" solution we have right now, it is still
>> a bad solution.
>
>
> Of course it is bad. That's why I suggest a separate tarball for iconv.
>
> But it doesn't matter, we need trees in-sync, so apr-iconv must be tagged
> with apr's tags, from here forwards. If you want to do that as an rtag,
> that would be fine too.
ok.. so.. i'm not sure if this has been resolved.
should we include the apr-iconv is the source distribution tarball,
or only have it in the win32 zipfile. my personal opinion is that is
should be in both, as some win32 users will just download the tarball
and this would be confusing.
>
> Bill
>
Re: cvs commit: httpd-2.0/build httpd_roll_release
Posted by Ian Holsman <ia...@apache.org>.
William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
> At 03:32 PM 8/1/2002, Ryan Bloom wrote:
>
>> > From: William A. Rowe, Jr. [mailto:wrowe@rowe-clan.net]
>> >
>> > At 11:42 AM 8/1/2002, you wrote:
>> > >ianh 2002/08/01 09:42:33
>> > >
>> > > Modified: build httpd_roll_release
>> > > Log:
>> > > we need apr-iconv now
>> >
>> > Even if we don't build it, this is extremely good practice that the
>> folks
>> > rolling and releasing the tarball TAG the apr-iconv tree in sync with
>> > the current apr and apr-util trees..
>>
>> I completely disagree. The problem is that the httpd_roll_release
>> script is for rolling httpd releases, not APR releases. This change
>> doesn't help people realize that they have to tag APR-iconv before they
>> can release httpd.
>
>
> Amazing that we tag APR at all, no?
>
>> I really agree with Cliff, the change to pull
>> apr-iconv out of APR is annoying, and it is going to cause problems. I
>> understand that it is the "best" solution we have right now, it is still
>> a bad solution.
>
>
> Of course it is bad. That's why I suggest a separate tarball for iconv.
>
> But it doesn't matter, we need trees in-sync, so apr-iconv must be tagged
> with apr's tags, from here forwards. If you want to do that as an rtag,
> that would be fine too.
ok.. so.. i'm not sure if this has been resolved.
should we include the apr-iconv is the source distribution tarball,
or only have it in the win32 zipfile. my personal opinion is that is
should be in both, as some win32 users will just download the tarball
and this would be confusing.
>
> Bill
>
RE: cvs commit: httpd-2.0/build httpd_roll_release
Posted by Ryan Bloom <rb...@covalent.net>.
> From: William A. Rowe, Jr. [mailto:wrowe@rowe-clan.net]
>
> At 11:42 AM 8/1/2002, you wrote:
> >ianh 2002/08/01 09:42:33
> >
> > Modified: build httpd_roll_release
> > Log:
> > we need apr-iconv now
>
> Even if we don't build it, this is extremely good practice that the
folks
> rolling and releasing the tarball TAG the apr-iconv tree in sync with
> the current apr and apr-util trees..
I completely disagree. The problem is that the httpd_roll_release
script is for rolling httpd releases, not APR releases. This change
doesn't help people realize that they have to tag APR-iconv before they
can release httpd. I really agree with Cliff, the change to pull
apr-iconv out of APR is annoying, and it is going to cause problems. I
understand that it is the "best" solution we have right now, it is still
a bad solution.
Ryan
RE: cvs commit: httpd-2.0/build httpd_roll_release
Posted by Ryan Bloom <rb...@covalent.net>.
> From: William A. Rowe, Jr. [mailto:wrowe@rowe-clan.net]
>
> At 11:42 AM 8/1/2002, you wrote:
> >ianh 2002/08/01 09:42:33
> >
> > Modified: build httpd_roll_release
> > Log:
> > we need apr-iconv now
>
> Even if we don't build it, this is extremely good practice that the
folks
> rolling and releasing the tarball TAG the apr-iconv tree in sync with
> the current apr and apr-util trees..
I completely disagree. The problem is that the httpd_roll_release
script is for rolling httpd releases, not APR releases. This change
doesn't help people realize that they have to tag APR-iconv before they
can release httpd. I really agree with Cliff, the change to pull
apr-iconv out of APR is annoying, and it is going to cause problems. I
understand that it is the "best" solution we have right now, it is still
a bad solution.
Ryan
Re: cvs commit: httpd-2.0/build httpd_roll_release
Posted by "William A. Rowe, Jr." <wr...@rowe-clan.net>.
At 11:42 AM 8/1/2002, you wrote:
>ianh 2002/08/01 09:42:33
>
> Modified: build httpd_roll_release
> Log:
> we need apr-iconv now
Even if we don't build it, this is extremely good practice that the folks
rolling and releasing the tarball TAG the apr-iconv tree in sync with
the current apr and apr-util trees..
I don't care if we roll in apr-iconv as part of the tarball, however.
Bill