You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@httpd.apache.org by Cliff Woolley <jw...@virginia.edu> on 2002/04/12 19:38:39 UTC
Re: Install documentation should mention flex requirement for mod_ssl
On 12 Apr 2002 bugzilla@apache.org wrote:
> Status|RESOLVED |REOPENED
> Resolution|INVALID |
For one thing, can we please change this "INVALID" thing to "MISTAKEN" or
something more friendly-sounding?
> ------- Additional Comments From paul@murph.org 2002-04-12 16:11 -------
> It's httpd-2.0.35.tar.gz itself which is broken - the files in question have
> incorrect timestamps on them (or have not been pre-built prior to building the
> distribution):
>
> bash-2.03$ gtar tzvf httpd-2.0.35.tar.gz | grep ssl_expr_
> -rw-r--r-- rbb/staff 10300 2002-03-13 20:47
> httpd-2.0.35/modules/ssl/ssl_expr_eval.c
> -rw-r--r-- rbb/staff 34302 2002-01-10 00:28
> httpd-2.0.35/modules/ssl/ssl_expr_parse.c
> -rw-r--r-- rbb/staff 510 2002-01-10 00:28
> httpd-2.0.35/modules/ssl/ssl_expr_parse.h
> -rw-r--r-- rbb/staff 6802 2002-03-13 20:47
> httpd-2.0.35/modules/ssl/ssl_expr_parse.y
> -rw-r--r-- rbb/staff 49142 2002-03-13 20:47
> httpd-2.0.35/modules/ssl/ssl_expr_scan.c
> -rw-r--r-- rbb/staff 6492 2002-03-13 20:47
> httpd-2.0.35/modules/ssl/ssl_expr_scan.l
But *DAMN*, he's right:
ssl_expr_parse.c 1.6 3 months wrowe This patch eliminated from...
ssl_expr_parse.h 1.6 3 months wrowe This patch eliminated from...
ssl_expr_parse.y 1.5 4 weeks fielding Update our copyright for this year.
ssl_expr_scan.c 1.8 4 weeks fielding Update our copyright for this year.
ssl_expr_scan.l 1.5 4 weeks fielding Update our copyright for this year.
Ouch.
I'll touch the necessary files and recommit them. Does anyone object to
having these generated files in the repository? While it causes headaches
such as this, I don't see that we have much of a choice given the fact
that some of our platforms probably don't have the right tools to generate
these files on their own... plus removing them would require changing the
tarball building script [not that that's not doable].
--Cliff
--------------------------------------------------------------
Cliff Woolley
cliffwoolley@yahoo.com
Charlottesville, VA
Re: Install documentation should mention flex requirement for mod_ssl
Posted by Cliff Woolley <jw...@virginia.edu>.
On 12 Apr 2002, Jeff Trawick wrote:
> I don't object to having them in the repository. I wonder if the
> tarball script could make sure the timestamps are in the right order
> (just do touch on the generated files?) so that this doesn't happen
> again. (but of course these files will move at some point :) )
Done.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Cliff Woolley
cliffwoolley@yahoo.com
Charlottesville, VA
Re: Install documentation should mention flex requirement for mod_ssl
Posted by Jeff Trawick <tr...@attglobal.net>.
Cliff Woolley <jw...@virginia.edu> writes:
> On 12 Apr 2002 bugzilla@apache.org wrote:
>
> > Status|RESOLVED |REOPENED
> > Resolution|INVALID |
>
> For one thing, can we please change this "INVALID" thing to "MISTAKEN" or
> something more friendly-sounding?
+1 :)
> ssl_expr_parse.h 1.6 3 months wrowe This patch eliminated from...
> ssl_expr_parse.y 1.5 4 weeks fielding Update our copyright for this year.
>
> ssl_expr_scan.c 1.8 4 weeks fielding Update our copyright for this year.
> ssl_expr_scan.l 1.5 4 weeks fielding Update our copyright for this year.
>
>
> Ouch.
>
> I'll touch the necessary files and recommit them. Does anyone object to
> having these generated files in the repository?
I don't object to having them in the repository. I wonder if the
tarball script could make sure the timestamps are in the right order
(just do touch on the generated files?) so that this doesn't happen
again. (but of course these files will move at some point :) )
--
Jeff Trawick | trawick@attglobal.net
Born in Roswell... married an alien...