You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@apr.apache.org by David Reid <da...@jetnet.co.uk> on 2004/07/09 16:08:00 UTC
1.0.0 RC3
So, tagged & rolled RC3 :-)
I didn't include jlibtool.
Nor did I include the recent FreeBSD poll changes as I don't think we've
quite gotten the changes far enough to amke them suitable for a 1.0.0
release.
I removed the tag from the renames-pending file as I didn't think that
should really be in our release :-)
I did include the rpm file, the recent Netware changes and (hopefully) all
the changes required to ensure we get versioned config files.
So, they're available again under http://www.apache.org/~dreid/
This *should* be the final code for the release.
Assuming that we get enough +1's are we missing any other files before we
can release a 1.0? (Announcement or anything like that?)
Can someone who's familiar enough with apr-iconv let me know what files need
to be specially tagged and I'll roll & tag an apr-iconv RC1 later today :-)
david
Re: 1.0.0 RC3
Posted by "William A. Rowe, Jr." <wr...@rowe-clan.net>.
At 10:45 AM 7/12/2004, Graham Leggett wrote:
>I have created a spec file for apr-iconv - but so far it seems apr-iconv is only necessary on windows. Can anyone confirm whether apr-iconv is needed on any Unix like platforms at all?
Anyone have other examples for Graham? Inquiring minds want to know!
This has alot to do with creating the appropriate 'patch' to enable iconv-2.0
to run in Win32, thereby jettisoning apr-iconv in APR-util 1.0.1. Obviously
the answer to this question will shape how we win32 porters move forward.
Bill
Re: 1.0.0 RC3
Posted by Graham Leggett <mi...@sharp.fm>.
David Reid wrote:
> I can do. That'll need an RC4 though... Any other files that aren't tagged
> correctly?
I only downloaded and tried apr, but not apr-util. In apr-util there
should be buildconf, build/rpm, and build/rpm/apr-util.spec.in.
I have created a spec file for apr-iconv - but so far it seems apr-iconv
is only necessary on windows. Can anyone confirm whether apr-iconv is
needed on any Unix like platforms at all?
Regards,
Graham
--
Re: 1.0.0 RC3
Posted by "William A. Rowe, Jr." <wr...@rowe-clan.net>.
At 10:52 AM 7/12/2004, David Reid wrote:
>Timetable is RC4 tomorrow, 1.0.0 on Thursday afternoon after my proficiency
>checks at work are over!
David, please make sure we don't include STATUS in those final tarballs.
I'd like to roll an RC4 win32 .zip as soon as your are done rolling RC4.
If you use the roll-release script, apr-iconv should get an API_1_0_0_RC4
tag, but if not I will tag what I extract for win32.
Bill
Re: 1.0.0 RC3
Posted by David Reid <da...@jetnet.co.uk>.
> On Mon, Jul 12, 2004 at 04:38:52PM +0100, David Reid wrote:
> > > David Reid wrote:
> > > I see that the changes to buildconf that add the version to the
specfile
> > > are missing - can you fix the tag on ./buildconf?
> >
> > I can do. That'll need an RC4 though... Any other files that aren't
tagged
> > correctly?
>
> You can say "no" at some point David :) Otherwise this process will just
Oh, trust me, I know!
> carry on every week for the rest of the year. 1.0.0 will have bugs and
> misfeatures and lack-of-features and some of these can wait to be fixed
> in 1.0.1, or 1.1 or later.
Right. RC4 will be the FINAL RC unless there is some huge problem. And by
huge I mean HUGE :-) The other thing that would be good to solve is the
FreeBSD bug that Nick Kew found where configure seems to detect IPv6 when it
shouldn't... However, it's not critical at all and won't delay RC4.
The main reason for RC4 is the rpm stuff...
Timetable is RC4 tomorrow, 1.0.0 on Thursday afternoon after my proficiency
checks at work are over!
Apart from those few files, are people happy that RC3 could be labelled as
APR 1.0.0. and APR-Util 1.0.0 though?
david
Re: 1.0.0 RC3
Posted by Joe Orton <jo...@redhat.com>.
On Mon, Jul 12, 2004 at 04:38:52PM +0100, David Reid wrote:
> > David Reid wrote:
> > I see that the changes to buildconf that add the version to the specfile
> > are missing - can you fix the tag on ./buildconf?
>
> I can do. That'll need an RC4 though... Any other files that aren't tagged
> correctly?
You can say "no" at some point David :) Otherwise this process will just
carry on every week for the rest of the year. 1.0.0 will have bugs and
misfeatures and lack-of-features and some of these can wait to be fixed
in 1.0.1, or 1.1 or later.
joe
Re: 1.0.0 RC3
Posted by David Reid <da...@jetnet.co.uk>.
> David Reid wrote:
>
> > So, tagged & rolled RC3 :-)
> >
> > I didn't include jlibtool.
> > Nor did I include the recent FreeBSD poll changes as I don't think we've
> > quite gotten the changes far enough to amke them suitable for a 1.0.0
> > release.
> > I removed the tag from the renames-pending file as I didn't think that
> > should really be in our release :-)
> >
> > I did include the rpm file, the recent Netware changes and (hopefully)
all
> > the changes required to ensure we get versioned config files.
>
> The file apr.spec is missing from the tarball, which is created by
> buildconf.
>
> I see that the changes to buildconf that add the version to the specfile
> are missing - can you fix the tag on ./buildconf?
I can do. That'll need an RC4 though... Any other files that aren't tagged
correctly?
So far it looks like bumps should be made for these files...
apr/buildconf
apr-util/buildconf
apr-util/misc/apr_rmm.c
Any more prior to me rolling RC4... Very little feedback on RC3 so far...
david
Re: 1.0.0 RC3
Posted by Graham Leggett <mi...@sharp.fm>.
David Reid wrote:
> So, tagged & rolled RC3 :-)
>
> I didn't include jlibtool.
> Nor did I include the recent FreeBSD poll changes as I don't think we've
> quite gotten the changes far enough to amke them suitable for a 1.0.0
> release.
> I removed the tag from the renames-pending file as I didn't think that
> should really be in our release :-)
>
> I did include the rpm file, the recent Netware changes and (hopefully) all
> the changes required to ensure we get versioned config files.
The file apr.spec is missing from the tarball, which is created by
buildconf.
I see that the changes to buildconf that add the version to the specfile
are missing - can you fix the tag on ./buildconf?
Regards,
Graham
--
Re: 1.0.0 RC3
Posted by Joe Orton <jo...@redhat.com>.
On Mon, Jul 12, 2004 at 12:09:20PM +0100, David Reid wrote:
> > So, tagged & rolled RC3 :-)
>
> Any feedback?
Tested on a bunch of Linux boxes at the weekend and looks good, +1.
joe
Re: 1.0.0 RC3
Posted by David Reid <da...@jetnet.co.uk>.
> So, tagged & rolled RC3 :-)
Any feedback?
Aim is to produce "final" 1.0 this week...
david
Re: 1.0.0 RC3
Posted by Nick Kew <ni...@webthing.com>.
I just tested this on FreeBSD 4.4 with no IPv6 (chipig persuaded me
to test sendfile - which works just fine - on it).
It failed 3/6 tests under testsocket. On investigatation, these
proved to be the three tests using IPV6. So it appears to be the
tests that are at fault, testing where they shouldn't.
--
Nick Kew