apr-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Joe Orton <jor...@redhat.com>
Subject Re: Tagging 1.2.* Sat night or Sun a.m.
Date Fri, 12 Oct 2007 15:06:33 GMT
On Thu, Oct 11, 2007 at 10:14:29AM -0500, William Rowe wrote:
> Lucian Adrian Grijincu wrote:
> >
> >Do my patches against configure.in, apr.hnw and apr.hw fixing the
> >apr_ino_t ( http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43417 )
> >issue have a chance of getting accepted (aka should I try to test them
> >on other configurations to see whether they break something on some
> >systems)?
> Not according to folks interpretation of our versioning policy, it seems
> this patch must wait for 2.0.0.  You would be breaking ABI for anyone
> building against a 32 bit APR build.

Lucian's patches do not change the ABI of the library which is built (at 
least by design, unless you are talking about some problem with the 
implementation which I'm missing).

In the case where APR is built *without* _FILE_OFFSET_BITS=64, and an 
external application includes APR headers *with* _FILE_OFFSET_BITS=64 
defined, an APR library ABI would be used by the application which does 
not match the real ABI, and all bets were off.  Lucian's patch fixes 

Exposing apr_ino_t from apr.h rather than only from apr_file_info.h is 
certainly an API extension and so cannot be done in 1.2.x.


View raw message