apr-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jeff Trawick <traw...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: svn commit: r906987 - /apr/apr/branches/1.3.x/build/buildcheck.sh
Date Fri, 05 Feb 2010 20:25:14 GMT
On Fri, Feb 5, 2010 at 3:00 PM, William A. Rowe Jr. <wrowe@rowe-clan.net> wrote:
> On 2/5/2010 1:40 PM, Jeff Trawick wrote:
>> On Fri, Feb 5, 2010 at 1:37 PM, William A. Rowe Jr. <wrowe@rowe-clan.net> wrote:
>>> On 2/5/2010 10:25 AM, Jeff Trawick wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> I noticed this when reviewing the 1.3.10 tarballs (still on my
>>>>> machine).  Should I retag 1.3.10 to avoid potential user confusion?
>>>>
>>>> or just skip 1.3.10 and call it 1.3.11; I don't care either way
>>>>
>>>> (If I hadn't sat back so long watching Bill crank these suckers out
>>>> I'd be done.  Thanks, Bill!)
>>>
>>> A PITA, huh?  :)  I would suggest simply rerolling with this change;
>>> "No C sources were harmed in the creation of this tarball".
>>>
>>> But that's just my 2c, others might disagree.
>>
>> I can pre-empt most concerns with the "version numbers are cheap" method.
>>
>> (Step 0. Review changes since the last release; fix or ask about
>> anything suspicious.)
>
> And another pretty straightforward point; autoconf is already conf'ed.
>
> Since this package ships ./configure, the warning would apply to a very
> small subset of a very small subset of people who 1) rerun ./buildconf for
> their own pleasure and 2) have a stale flavor.
>
> So I personally don't think it's even worth rerolling.

I agree, but too late now (what a week).

I'll commit the artifacts to the dev dist directory before long.

Mime
View raw message