apr-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Nick Kew <...@apache.org>
Subject Re: 1.6.0 release candidates
Date Sat, 29 Apr 2017 11:23:52 GMT
On Fri, 2017-04-28 at 11:35 -0500, William A Rowe Jr wrote:

>   ./configure --enable-timedlocks
> 
> Right off the bat we find new rpm hokum in our configure;

Where does the rpm_share come from?  Isn't tar a complete red herring?  
And grep -R doesn't find init_baselib either.

> make test is a bit of a mess, here are just the stderr observations;

OK, actual errors are presumably the place to look for what might
be actual regressions.  In summary:

> Failed Tests            Total   Fail    Failed %
> ===================================================
> testdso                     9      8     88.89%
> testprocmutex               6      3     50.00%
> testsock                   16      2     12.50%

> The less-than-straightforward build is due to crazy AIX
> quirks convincing their xlc/ccs toolchains to emit anything
> that is 64 bit on a 64 bit build box;

You've evidently worked around it.  Is that a fix you can apply
in our build (from trunk or otherwise), or is it better left
as a release note?

> Failed Tests            Total   Fail    Failed %
> ===================================================
> testdso                     9      8     88.89%
> testprocmutex               6      3     50.00%
> testsock                   16      2     12.50%

So no change there.  Good.

> The obvious question, what is new since 1.5.2? New tests,
> for one, new misbehavior as well; the prior results from
> a recent product build with APR 1.5.2;

This is quite a lot to digest.  Would it be fair to
assume that anything outside those failed tests is
unlikely to be an actual regression from 1.5.x?

-- 
Nick Kew


Mime
View raw message