Return-Path: <new-httpd-owner-new-httpd-archive=hyperreal.org@apache.org>
Delivered-To: new-httpd-archive@hyperreal.org
Received: (qmail 1672 invoked by uid 6000); 18 Jan 2000 16:50:14 -0000
Received: (qmail 1658 invoked from network); 18 Jan 2000 16:50:12 -0000
Received: from palrel1.hp.com (156.153.255.242)
  by taz.hyperreal.org with SMTP; 18 Jan 2000 16:50:12 -0000
Received: from xboibrg2.boi.hp.com (xboibrg2.boi.hp.com [15.56.8.172])
	by palrel1.hp.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B1E7D463
	for <new-httpd@apache.org>; Tue, 18 Jan 2000 08:50:11 -0800 (PST)
Received: by xboibrg2.boi.hp.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21)
	id <C4519XYT>; Tue, 18 Jan 2000 09:50:11 -0700
Message-ID: <87FB8F5CE210D311B60500A0C9F4871C04780670@xcup01.cup.hp.com>
From: "BIXBY,MARK \(HP-Cupertino,ex1\)" <mark_bixby@hp.com>
To: "'new-httpd@apache.org'" <new-httpd@apache.org>
Subject: RE: Test the baby...
Date: Tue, 18 Jan 2000 09:50:08 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21)
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Sender: new-httpd-owner@apache.org
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: new-httpd@apache.org



> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jim Jagielski [mailto:jim@jaguNET.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, January 18, 2000 5:13 AM
> To: new-httpd@apache.org
> Subject: Re: Test the baby...
> 
> 
> What I mean is that is this something that would be "nice" to have in,
> or is it needed.
> 
> If the former, then I say it's our 1st patch for 1.3.11-dev. If the
> later, then we retag and reroll. ANY patches required cause the retag
> and reroll: no debate there. That's the way it is :)

It's a needed patch.  Without it, the default is to strip, and stripping the
executables on MPE results in invalid unrunable program files.

FWIW, I did submit this with my original MPE diffs, but it looks like
somebody else's patch accidently broke mine.

- Mark B.

> 
> Dean Gaudet wrote:
> > 
> > oh no, not this debate again :)
> > 
> > Dean
> > 
> > On Mon, 17 Jan 2000, Jim Jagielski wrote:
> > 
> > > Please note that this will require that the release be bumped to
> > > 1.3.11. No big deal, after all, that's what the tests are
> > > supposed to do, but is it "minor" enough to NOT have to
> > > reroll and retag?
> > > 
> > > "BIXBY,MARK \(HP-Cupertino,ex1\)" wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > Looks good on MPE/iX, except for some minor configure 
> breakage.  Could
> > > > somebody please apply this patch for me?
> > > > 
> > > > Thanks!
> > > > 
> > > > - Mark B.
> > > > 
> > > > --- apache_1.3.10/configure     Tue Jan 11 11:47:42 2000
> > > > +++ apache_1.3.10_m/configure   Mon Jan 17 13:55:58 2000
> > > > @@ -339,6 +339,10 @@
> > > >          iflags_program="${iflags_program} -e .exe" 
> > > >          iflags_core="${iflags_core} -e .exe" 
> > > >          ;;
> > > > +    *MPE/iX* )
> > > > +       default_layout="Apache"
> > > > +       iflags_program="-m 755"
> > > > +       ;;
> > > >     *)
> > > >         default_layout="Apache"
> > > >         ;;
> > > > @@ -357,9 +361,6 @@
> > > >              set -- --with-layout="$default_layout" "$@"
> > > >          fi
> > > >          ;;
> > > > -    *MPE/iX* )
> > > > -       iflags_program="-m 755"
> > > > -       ;;
> > > >  esac
> > > >  
> > > >  ##
> > > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > -- 
> > > 
> ==============================================================
> =============
> > >    Jim Jagielski   [|]   jim@jaguNET.com   [|]   
http://www.jaguNET.com/
> >                 "Are you suggesting coconuts migrate??"
> > 
> 


-- 
===========================================================================
   Jim Jagielski   [|]   jim@jaguNET.com   [|]   http://www.jaguNET.com/
                "Are you suggesting coconuts migrate??"