On 19/11/2008, Mark Thomas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > sebb wrote: > > However, there are several binary files that are different: > > > > connectors/jni/native/os/win32/logmessages.bin > > connectors/procrun/bin.../tomcat*.exe > > > > This suggests a packaging error - perhaps these bin files were > > incorrectly formatted to correct the line-endings? > > Looks like. I'll get it fixed in svn in case there is another release. > > > > Also, the procrun/README.txt file refers to Tomcat 5 (trivial) > > A result of sharing connectors between 4 & 5. I'll get that fixed too. > > > > There are no top-level LICENSE and NOTICE files in the archive; > > instead there are various different files at different levels of the > > directory tree. Not every LICENSE file has an accompanying NOTICE > > file. > > A result of pulling together various source trees. > > > > The binary zip archive has several empty directories that are not in > > the tgz version: > > logs > > shared > > work > > common/classes > > common/classes > > > > Is this intentional? > > No, but they will be created as required. > > > > The binary archives have one copy each of tomcat4.exe and > > tomcat4w.exe; I presume this is the version for Intel 32 bit. Why not > > include the amd64 and ia64 versions as well? > > The packaging pre-dates those versions being available. > > > > The NOTICE and LICENSE files in the binary archive refer to several > > products that don't seem to be included (at least not as separate > > jars) > > JSSE > > JUnit > > pureTLS > > Tyrex > > That is me being over cautious and including all the libs you need to do a > full build on a pre 1.4 JDK. > > > > === > > > > Findbugs reports lots of bugs, but I don't know if they relate to code > > that is actually > > used or not. > > > > For example, the org.apache.tomcat.util.threads.Reaper class uses a > > boolean field "running" to communicate with a different thread, but > > fails to synchronize access and does not use volatile. > > > As far as I can tell, not used. There is a lot of code like that that I am > trying to clean up in trunk. It isn't worth the effort to back port it. > > > If we were seeing bug reports for TC4 then I'd be worried but we aren't.
Or maybe the problem only occurs occasionally, not enough to bother reporting... > But those people that are using TC4 seem happy with it - they just need the > security fixes. > > I'll fix the obvious errors in case there is another 4.1.x release but I > don't see anything here to stop 4.1.39. > > > Mark > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
