Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-httpd-dev-archive@www.apache.org Received: (qmail 12151 invoked from network); 28 Nov 2004 23:51:23 -0000 Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (209.237.227.199) by minotaur-2.apache.org with SMTP; 28 Nov 2004 23:51:23 -0000 Received: (qmail 71333 invoked by uid 500); 28 Nov 2004 23:51:20 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-httpd-dev-archive@httpd.apache.org Received: (qmail 71295 invoked by uid 500); 28 Nov 2004 23:51:20 -0000 Mailing-List: contact dev-help@httpd.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dev@httpd.apache.org list-help: list-unsubscribe: list-post: Delivered-To: mailing list dev@httpd.apache.org Received: (qmail 71273 invoked by uid 99); 28 Nov 2004 23:51:19 -0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=10.0 tests= X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (hermes.apache.org: local policy) Received: from jupiter.hal-nine-zero-zero-zero.net (HELO jupiter.hal-nine-zero-zero-zero.net) (217.160.171.50) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.28) with SMTP; Sun, 28 Nov 2004 15:51:18 -0800 Received: (qmail 32521 invoked from network); 28 Nov 2004 23:51:18 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO p50838F35.dip0.t-ipconnect.de) (80.131.143.53) by jupiter.hal-nine-zero-zero-zero.net with SMTP; 28 Nov 2004 23:51:18 -0000 From: =?iso-8859-1?q?Andr=E9_Malo?= Organization: TIMTOWTDI To: dev@httpd.apache.org Subject: Re: PCRE in 2.1/2.2 Date: Mon, 29 Nov 2004 00:51:13 +0100 User-Agent: KMail/1.7.1 References: <419B99C1.1030102@force-elite.com> <41A8E803.1010900@apache.org> <41AA6103.6020102@apache.org> In-Reply-To: <41AA6103.6020102@apache.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200411290051.13632@news.perlig.de> X-Virus-Checked: Checked X-Spam-Rating: minotaur-2.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N * Brian Pane wrote: > Okay, I checked out the patch attached to that bug. Supporting the use > of an external copy of PCRE makes sense. +1 on concept. > The patch also changes various > core PCRE function names to ap_*. That definitely helps prevent > collisions with libc or libpthread versions of the regex functions on > some platforms, but changing the PCRE function names may be > controversial... would any other committers care to chime in with their > thoughts on this? I'm wondering if there isn't a better solution for this. But if we'd need to change the names, I think we should do this more centralized, i.e. a header file, which contains some defines and is included in proper files. This would keep the patches against the upstream more clear. Shouldn't that work? > Meanwhile, now that we have the latest release of PCRE in httpd-2.1, one > option would help somewhat would be to backport it into httpd-2.0. I'm -1 on backporting PCRE 5.0 to 2.0. nd -- Ook. Ook. Ook. Ook. Ook. Ook. Ook. Ook. Ook. Ook. Ook. Ook. Ook. Ook. Ook! Ook? Ook. Ook? Ook. Ook. Ook. Ook. Ook. Ook. Ook. Ook. Ook. Ook. Ook. Ook. Ook. Ook. Ook? Ook. Ook! Ook! Ook? Ook! Ook. Ook? Ook. Ook. Ook. Ook. Ook. Ook. Ook! Ook. Ook! Ook! Ook! Ook! Ook! Ook.