You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@apr.apache.org by "William A. Rowe, Jr." <wr...@rowe-clan.net> on 2007/05/30 07:50:31 UTC
Really last call to roll Thurs 2100 GMT
I'd like to roll a tarball tomorrow about noon here in the midwest us,
for 0.9 and 1.2 of apr, apr-util and apr-iconv. Iconv - since everyone
I've asked to test the latest agrees that the 64-bittedness issues are
gone. So patch away, but please don't destabilize the branches.
Bill
Re: Really last call to roll Thurs 2100 GMT
Posted by "William A. Rowe, Jr." <wr...@rowe-clan.net>.
William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
> I'd like to roll a tarball tomorrow about noon here in the midwest us,
> for 0.9 and 1.2 of apr, apr-util and apr-iconv. Iconv - since everyone
> I've asked to test the latest agrees that the 64-bittedness issues are
> gone. So patch away, but please don't destabilize the branches.
I don't know where my brain is, I'm +500 these days. So call it 1800 gmt
instead? I'll be on #apr if you are wrapping something up in the same
timeframe and need to holler at me.
Re: Really last call to roll Thurs 2100 GMT
Posted by "William A. Rowe, Jr." <wr...@rowe-clan.net>.
Bojan Smojver wrote:
> On Wed, 2007-05-30 at 14:29 -0500, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
>>
>>> Any chance of getting this in?
>>>
>>> http://www.mail-archive.com/dev%40apr.apache.org/msg18111.html
>> +1
>
> Once the second cleanup function becomes apr_unix_child_file_cleanup, I
> think.
According to trunk and his revised patch, I agree. Committed, backported.
Bill
Re: Really last call to roll Thurs 2100 GMT
Posted by Bojan Smojver <bo...@rexursive.com>.
On Wed, 2007-05-30 at 14:29 -0500, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
>
> > Any chance of getting this in?
> >
> > http://www.mail-archive.com/dev%40apr.apache.org/msg18111.html
>
> +1
Once the second cleanup function becomes apr_unix_child_file_cleanup, I
think.
--
Bojan
Re: Really last call to roll Thurs 2100 GMT
Posted by "William A. Rowe, Jr." <wr...@rowe-clan.net>.
Brian J. France wrote:
>
> On May 30, 2007, at 1:50 AM, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
>> I'd like to roll a tarball tomorrow about noon here in the midwest us,
>> for 0.9 and 1.2 of apr, apr-util and apr-iconv. Iconv - since everyone
>> I've asked to test the latest agrees that the 64-bittedness issues are
>> gone. So patch away, but please don't destabilize the branches.
>
> Any chance of getting this in?
>
> http://www.mail-archive.com/dev%40apr.apache.org/msg18111.html
+1
Re: Really last call to roll Thurs 2100 GMT
Posted by "Brian J. France" <li...@firehawksystems.com>.
On May 30, 2007, at 4:21 PM, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
> Brian J. France wrote:
>>
>> On May 30, 2007, at 1:50 AM, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
>>> I'd like to roll a tarball tomorrow about noon here in the
>>> midwest us,
>>> for 0.9 and 1.2 of apr, apr-util and apr-iconv. Iconv - since
>>> everyone
>>> I've asked to test the latest agrees that the 64-bittedness
>>> issues are
>>> gone. So patch away, but please don't destabilize the branches.
>>
>> Any chance of getting this in?
>>
>> http://www.mail-archive.com/dev%40apr.apache.org/msg18111.html
>
> Note there are 3 implementations (unix/os2/netware) and your patch
> isn't
> terribly specific :) This is a little more than trivial.
Something like this:
http://www.brianfrance.com/software/apache/apr.file_io.diff
os2 just includes the unix version.
Brian
Re: Really last call to roll Thurs 2100 GMT
Posted by "William A. Rowe, Jr." <wr...@rowe-clan.net>.
Brian J. France wrote:
>
> On May 30, 2007, at 1:50 AM, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
>> I'd like to roll a tarball tomorrow about noon here in the midwest us,
>> for 0.9 and 1.2 of apr, apr-util and apr-iconv. Iconv - since everyone
>> I've asked to test the latest agrees that the 64-bittedness issues are
>> gone. So patch away, but please don't destabilize the branches.
>
> Any chance of getting this in?
>
> http://www.mail-archive.com/dev%40apr.apache.org/msg18111.html
Note there are 3 implementations (unix/os2/netware) and your patch isn't
terribly specific :) This is a little more than trivial.
Bill
Re: Really last call to roll Thurs 2100 GMT
Posted by "Brian J. France" <li...@firehawksystems.com>.
On May 30, 2007, at 1:50 AM, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
> I'd like to roll a tarball tomorrow about noon here in the midwest us,
> for 0.9 and 1.2 of apr, apr-util and apr-iconv. Iconv - since
> everyone
> I've asked to test the latest agrees that the 64-bittedness issues are
> gone. So patch away, but please don't destabilize the branches.
Any chance of getting this in?
http://www.mail-archive.com/dev%40apr.apache.org/msg18111.html
Brian
Re: Really last call to roll Thurs 2100 GMT
Posted by Issac Goldstand <ma...@beamartyr.net>.
William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
> Issac Goldstand wrote:
>
>> Any chance someone can review the patch at
>> http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42526 for considered
>> inclusion in the next set of tarballs?
>>
>
> If it treats endianness correctly by cpu, I'm all for it.
>
> However, if http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=20277
> simply maps both to the default endianness, this patch is silly ;-)
>
> Without my spending 30 minutes in there, can you describe how -BE and
> -LE mappings produce the CORRECT unicode word encodings independent of
> the platform's default?
>
> Bill
>
I'm no iconv guru - I know that on systems with gnu iconv, I can
specifically request -BE and -LE. I actually naively assumed that
apr-iconv can support both ways; for example with the Apache HTTP
server, I can't see the usefulness of a BE server sending to an LE
client (or vice versa) without a BOM. And even if we'd make sure to
send one, the same could be applied for sending UTF-16 in the request,
where there's no way to get the BOM.
Having looked a bit at the sources, I see that that's not the case.
It's tired and my head hurts, but there seems to be a way to specify
endianness by setting ces->data to 1 or 2. Otherwise with writes, it
assumes the endianness of the system and prepends a BOM, and with reads
it assumes HSB order. Unfortunately, this isn't something I can really
attack now, so I guess it'll have to wait a bit longer :-/
Re: Really last call to roll Thurs 2100 GMT
Posted by "William A. Rowe, Jr." <wr...@rowe-clan.net>.
Issac Goldstand wrote:
> Any chance someone can review the patch at
> http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42526 for considered
> inclusion in the next set of tarballs?
If it treats endianness correctly by cpu, I'm all for it.
However, if http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=20277
simply maps both to the default endianness, this patch is silly ;-)
Without my spending 30 minutes in there, can you describe how -BE and
-LE mappings produce the CORRECT unicode word encodings independent of
the platform's default?
Bill
Re: Really last call to roll Thurs 2100 GMT
Posted by Issac Goldstand <ma...@beamartyr.net>.
Any chance someone can review the patch at
http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42526 for considered
inclusion in the next set of tarballs?
Issac
William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
> I'd like to roll a tarball tomorrow about noon here in the midwest us,
> for 0.9 and 1.2 of apr, apr-util and apr-iconv. Iconv - since everyone
> I've asked to test the latest agrees that the 64-bittedness issues are
> gone. So patch away, but please don't destabilize the branches.
>
> Bill
>