Mailing-List: contact dev-help@httpd.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@httpd.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (nike.apache.org: domain of rainer.jung@kippdata.de
 designates 195.227.30.149 as permitted sender)
Message-ID: <53CF8BE2.5060107@kippdata.de>
Date: Wed, 23 Jul 2014 12:18:10 +0200
From: Rainer Jung <rainer.jung@kippdata.de>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64;
 rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.6.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: dev@httpd.apache.org
Subject: Re: svn commit: r1612653 - /httpd/httpd/trunk/server/util_pcre.c
References: <20140722192908.AF0D3238896F@eris.apache.org>
 <53CEC773.60005@wanadoo.fr> <53CED127.2010204@kippdata.de>
 <53CF0117.3070805@apache.org>
In-Reply-To: <53CF0117.3070805@apache.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

On 23.07.2014 02:25, Guenter Knauf wrote:
> Hi Rainer,
> On 22.07.2014 23:01, Rainer Jung wrote:
>> documenting the requirement PCRE >= 6.7 and dropping the check (and
>> error message) for PCRE_DUPNAMES from server/util_pcre.c.
> -1.
> Please think of non-configure builds;
> it doesnt hurt if the code errors out when the requirements do not met.

Good point. But in this case even after dropping the check, it would 
mean the build would error out because PCRE_DUPNAMES isn't known. So 
then you would have to check the (new) info in the docs, that minimum 
PCRE version is 6.7.

Of course an #error message would help because it is more explicit, but 
I think that's not how the code currently is structured in general. If 
there is a dependency for a library version, we don't check in the 
sources whether the right version is available.

Regards,

Rainer