httpd-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: svn commit: r822094 - /httpd/mod_fcgid/trunk/modules/fcgid/fcgid_conf.c
Date Tue, 06 Oct 2009 16:26:08 GMT
Rainer Jung wrote:
> On 06.10.2009 14:56, Jeff Trawick wrote:
>> On Tue, Oct 6, 2009 at 4:07 AM, William A. Rowe, Jr.
>> <wrowe@rowe-clan.net <mailto:wrowe@rowe-clan.net>> wrote:
>>
>>     trawick@apache.org <mailto:trawick@apache.org> wrote:
>>     > Author: trawick
>>     > Date: Mon Oct  5 23:58:34 2009
>>     > New Revision: 822094
>>     >
>>     > URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=822094&view=rev
>>     <http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=822094&view=rev>
>>     > Log:
>>     > consolidate/improve reporting of bogus files in the configuration
>>
>>     My quick evaluation of the state of the code
>>
>>
>> (hoping that includes building on Windows to see the more obvious
>> Jeff-breakage :( )
> 
> Neither obvious nor non-obvious: I tried building on Windows right now
> (against 2.2.14). It succeeds without errors or warning :)
> 
> I tried the devenv method and also the .mak file. Both methods worked,
> for the .mak method I first had to enter the modules/fcgid directory,
> otherwise the makefile complains about not finding the .dep file.

You were building Makefile-fcgid.win I trust?  Oh - you cannot invoke an
msvcrt exported makefile from another directory, but the top level makefile
should handle this for you.  There is an issue with passing the variables
to the lower-level invocation of Makefile-fcgid.win which I'll look for fixes.

>>     suggests we are ready for another beta
>>     candidate right now?  Unless I hear otherwise, I'll roll this in a
>>     half day and see
>>     if we aren't more successful this round.
>>
>>
>> +1
>>
>> Beyond beta, I think we have something that is clearly better than the
>> 2007 mod_fcgid 2.2 release and should get out the door soon as a GA (as
>> long as testing doesn't show any regression).  I just made what I hope
>> are uncontroversial changes to the directive names.  I'll try to make
>> peace with the rest.  It would be great if others would decide in the
>> short term what they can't live with.
> 
> +1

Agreed, putting one final beta out there for users to review the directives
would go a long ways into pacifying that final list of renames or catching any
that should be changed one last time.

Mime
View raw message