[STATUS] (apr-util) Wed Jun 11 23:45:48 EDT 2003

[Rodent of Unusual Size <Ke...@Golux.Com>]

APRUTIL LIBRARY STATUS:						-*-text-*-
Last modified at [$Date: 2003/03/31 05:32:43 $]

Release:

    0.9.3   : Tagged March 30, 2002
    0.9.2   : Released March 22, 2002      (alpha)
    0.9.1   : Released September 11, 2002  (alpha)
    0.9.0   : Not released

    2.0a9   : released December 12, 2000


RELEASE SHOWSTOPPERS:

RELEASE NON-SHOWSTOPPERS BUT WOULD BE REAL NICE TO WRAP THESE UP:

    * Solaris's Sun Freeware (sfw) package has a busted gcc/ld setup.
      This gcc passes -L/opt/sfw/lib to /usr/ccs/bin/ld, but does not 
      pass -R.  Therefore, when trying to run the code using a
      library from /opt/sfw/lib (say, libdb), the run-time linker
      will not look in /opt/sfw/lib and the program will die.
        Status: Workaround is to add "-R/opt/sfw/lib" to LDFLAGS.
                Should check latest sfw package set and see if Sun
                may have fixed this.

    * GDBM usage of errno is not-thread-safe.  Fix.

Other bugs that need fixing:



Other features that need writing:

    * possibly move test/testdbm* to util/dbu
      Justin says: Do we still want to do this?  testdate is now in test.
      Status: Greg +1 (volunteers)

Documentation that needs writing:

    * API documentation
        Status:

    * doc the lifetimes of apr_dbm return values


Available Patches:


Open Issues:

Re: [STATUS] (apr-util) Wed Jun 11 23:45:48 EDT 2003

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

On Fri, 13 Jun 2003, Joshua Moore-Oliva wrote:

> WIll 0.9.3 be considered to be out of alpha when it is released?
>
> I've been watching this project with great interest for quite a while, thogh
> I'm a little scared to use alpha code.

There's no particular reason for it to be called alpha except to give us
room to clean up the API when we hit 1.0.  If it makes you feel any better
with respect to the stability of the code, Apache 2.0 (which has had a
number of stable releases now) uses this exact codebase extensively.

--Cliff

Re: [STATUS] (apr-util) Wed Jun 11 23:45:48 EDT 2003

[Joshua Moore-Oliva <jo...@chatgris.com>]

WIll 0.9.3 be considered to be out of alpha when it is released?

I've been watching this project with great interest for quite a while, thogh 
I'm a little scared to use alpha code.

Josh.

On June 11, 2003 11:45 pm, Rodent of Unusual Size wrote:
> APRUTIL LIBRARY STATUS:						-*-text-*-
> Last modified at [$Date: 2003/03/31 05:32:43 $]
>
> Release:
>
>     0.9.3   : Tagged March 30, 2002
>     0.9.2   : Released March 22, 2002      (alpha)
>     0.9.1   : Released September 11, 2002  (alpha)
>     0.9.0   : Not released
>
>     2.0a9   : released December 12, 2000
>
>
> RELEASE SHOWSTOPPERS:
>
> RELEASE NON-SHOWSTOPPERS BUT WOULD BE REAL NICE TO WRAP THESE UP:
>
>     * Solaris's Sun Freeware (sfw) package has a busted gcc/ld setup.
>       This gcc passes -L/opt/sfw/lib to /usr/ccs/bin/ld, but does not
>       pass -R.  Therefore, when trying to run the code using a
>       library from /opt/sfw/lib (say, libdb), the run-time linker
>       will not look in /opt/sfw/lib and the program will die.
>         Status: Workaround is to add "-R/opt/sfw/lib" to LDFLAGS.
>                 Should check latest sfw package set and see if Sun
>                 may have fixed this.
>
>     * GDBM usage of errno is not-thread-safe.  Fix.
>
> Other bugs that need fixing:
>
>
>
> Other features that need writing:
>
>     * possibly move test/testdbm* to util/dbu
>       Justin says: Do we still want to do this?  testdate is now in test.
>       Status: Greg +1 (volunteers)
>
> Documentation that needs writing:
>
>     * API documentation
>         Status:
>
>     * doc the lifetimes of apr_dbm return values
>
>
> Available Patches:
>
>
> Open Issues: