apr-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "William A. Rowe, Jr." <wr...@rowe-clan.net>
Subject Re: Tagging 1.2.* Sat night or Sun a.m.
Date Thu, 11 Oct 2007 15:14:29 GMT
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.

If folks can prove APR 1.0.0 forward have promised that it's internally
always built _FILE_OFFSET_BITS=64 then I'd entertain changing the type,
(an external included-headers apparent bug as opposed to an internal bug)
but again according to folks interpretation of the versioning policy,
this would have to be based on apr_off_t or a type we already declare,
as we cannot add an apr_ino_t until 1.3.0.

Other opinions?

Bill

Mime
View raw message