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: Time for APR 2.0?
Date Tue, 08 Sep 2015 02:25:25 GMT
On Sep 5, 2015 10:14 AM, "Branko ─îibej" <brane@apache.org> wrote:
> On 27.08.2015 05:46, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
> > Several years ago, we combined the functionality of apr and apr-util,
> > and that library no longer draws in sub-dependencies until specific
> > components are necessary (dbm providers, dbd providers, crypto
> > providers etc).
> >
> > It seems overtime that we produce a release based on that effort, I'm
> > offering in absence of other volunteers to prepare an -alpha candidate
> > in mid-September.
> >
> > We don't work on the same clock as downstream distributors, so
> > whatever effort we make in Sept won't see broad distribution until
> > 2016.  But if the httpd, svn and other consumers have successfully
> > integrated with the 2.0 trunk/ development effort, it seems like this
> > is a good time to begin to make that happen.
> >
> > Thoughts/comments/roadblocks/showstoppers?
> I've been trying to test APR trunk on the latest and greatest OSX beta.
> Quite a few weird results ...
> For starters, the HAVE_FDATASYNC symbols is defined in
> arch/unix/apr_private.h, even though there's no such function on OSX.
> The compiler does warn about the missing prototype for fdatasync(), but
> AC_TEST_FUNCS doesn't seem to care about that ...
> The result is a number of test failures (some of which seem to be test
> suite bugs) and crashes in the tests.
> I'll invesigate further.

Please do.

I jumped to a pure bleed environment of httpd dependencies two weeks ago
and was offer oh so many surprises.  I don't know if I will be happy with
our cmake environment by end of week, but the official cmake FAQ doesn't
offer a lot of hope.  (This going to the rel vs abs path debate... So
disappointed when any tool author falls on the one-true-path sword... Sigh )

View raw message