tomcat-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Christopher Schultz <ch...@christopherschultz.net>
Subject Re: Where to put proposals for tcnative?
Date Fri, 07 Jun 2013 14:05:27 GMT
Rainer,

On 6/6/13 5:06 PM, Rainer Jung wrote:
> On 06.06.2013 22:54, Rainer Jung wrote:
>> On 06.06.2013 19:56, Christopher Schultz wrote:
>>> Rainer,
>>>
>>> On 6/6/13 1:32 PM, Rainer Jung wrote:
>>>> On 06.06.2013 18:22, Christopher Schultz wrote:
>>
>>>> Proposals mostly for the C files probably make sense in a STATUS file
>>>> here if they are backports from native trunk.
>>>
>>> I was going to make a C-language proposal.
>>>
>>> I can't seem to get "configure" to work in trunk because some macros
>>> aren't working properly (see below), so I've been working in the 1.1.x
>>> branch.
>>
>> See below below :)
>>
>>> PS Here's what I get when trying to build tcnative-trunk:
>>
>> ... snip ...
>>
>> configure.in was broken as was the new java detection macro. Hopefully
>> fixed in the last two commits. "svn up" and there you go.
> 
> I should also warn you: native trunk is not in good shape. Many C files
> are behind the 1.1 ones. trunk was created for some new features and
> increased APR minimum version
> 
> 
> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/tomcat-dev/200810.mbox/%3C48E6302B.7060704@kippdata.de%3E
> 
> but later lots of changes were applied directly to 1.1 and trunk was
> forgotten. See the January 2013 discussion thread on tcnative. The clean
> up for the native c files didn't happen.

In this particular case, it seems like my changes should be relatively
compatible between the two. Should I patch trunk and back-port, patch
1.1 and forward-port, or patch 1.1 and ignore trunk (thus making the
problem worse). I suspect trunk -> 1.1 since it looks straightforward.

(Commit after review, of course)

Thanks,
-chris


Mime
View raw message