On 2019-09-30, sebb wrote:
> On Mon, 30 Sep 2019 at 10:25, Stefan Bodewig wrote:
>> On 2019-09-29, sebb wrote:
>>> On Sun, 29 Sep 2019 at 17:21, Matt Sicker wrote:
Projects that have a configure script usually include that in the source
distribution but not in the source repository
On 28/09/2019 17:42, Mark Thomas wrote:
> On 28/09/2019 17:06, Gary Gregory wrote:
>> On Sat, Sep 28, 2019 at 12:04 PM Gary Gregory
>> wrote:
>>> I can build without errors but with warnings:
>>>
>>> .\..\..\apps\prunsrv\prunsrv.c(323): warning C4996: '_wfopen': This
>>> function or variable ma
On Mon, 30 Sep 2019 at 10:25, Stefan Bodewig wrote:
>
> On 2019-09-29, sebb wrote:
>
> > On Sun, 29 Sep 2019 at 17:21, Matt Sicker wrote:
>
> >> Projects that have a configure script usually include that in the source
> >> distribution but not in the source repository (at least for autotools
> >>
On 2019-09-29, sebb wrote:
> On Sun, 29 Sep 2019 at 17:21, Matt Sicker wrote:
>> Projects that have a configure script usually include that in the source
>> distribution but not in the source repository (at least for autotools
>> users).
> But is that correct?
This is what people expect.
As o
On Mon, 30 Sep 2019 at 09:23, Mark Thomas wrote:
>
> On 29/09/2019 23:15, Gary Gregory wrote:
> > On Sun, Sep 29, 2019 at 6:04 PM sebb wrote:
> >
> >> On Sun, 29 Sep 2019 at 22:36, Matt Sicker wrote:
> >>>
> >>> I’m sort of going off of what GNU projects do (they use autotools for
> >> any C
> >
On 29/09/2019 23:15, Gary Gregory wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 29, 2019 at 6:04 PM sebb wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 29 Sep 2019 at 22:36, Matt Sicker wrote:
>>>
>>> I’m sort of going off of what GNU projects do (they use autotools for
>> any C
>>> projects), but the common ‘./configure && make && sudo make inst
> On Sep 29, 2019, at 5:36 PM, Matt Sicker wrote:
>
> I’m sort of going off of what GNU projects do (they use autotools for any C
> projects), but the common ‘./configure && make && sudo make install’
> snippet is almost timeless.
>
+1 to that
>> On Sun, Sep 29, 2019 at 13:01, sebb wrote:
On Sun, Sep 29, 2019 at 6:04 PM sebb wrote:
> On Sun, 29 Sep 2019 at 22:36, Matt Sicker wrote:
> >
> > I’m sort of going off of what GNU projects do (they use autotools for
> any C
> > projects), but the common ‘./configure && make && sudo make install’
> > snippet is almost timeless.
>
> Not su
On Sun, 29 Sep 2019 at 22:36, Matt Sicker wrote:
>
> I’m sort of going off of what GNU projects do (they use autotools for any C
> projects), but the common ‘./configure && make && sudo make install’
> snippet is almost timeless.
Not sure what that has to do with the question at hand, i.e
Is the
I’m sort of going off of what GNU projects do (they use autotools for any C
projects), but the common ‘./configure && make && sudo make install’
snippet is almost timeless.
On Sun, Sep 29, 2019 at 13:01, sebb wrote:
> On Sun, 29 Sep 2019 at 17:21, Matt Sicker wrote:
> >
> > Projects that have a
On Sun, 29 Sep 2019 at 17:21, Matt Sicker wrote:
>
> Projects that have a configure script usually include that in the source
> distribution but not in the source repository (at least for autotools
> users).
But is that correct?
Surely the source archive should only contain source that is in the
Projects that have a configure script usually include that in the source
distribution but not in the source repository (at least for autotools
users).
On Sat, Sep 28, 2019 at 17:41, sebb wrote:
> On Sat, 28 Sep 2019 at 17:42, Mark Thomas wrote:
> >
> > On 28/09/2019 17:06, Gary Gregory wrote:
>
On Sat, 28 Sep 2019 at 17:42, Mark Thomas wrote:
>
> On 28/09/2019 17:06, Gary Gregory wrote:
> > On Sat, Sep 28, 2019 at 12:04 PM Gary Gregory
> > wrote:
> >
> >> I can confirm that if I delete all of:
> >>
> >> src\native\windows\apps\prunmgr\WINXP_X86_GUI_RELEASE
> >> src\native\windows\apps\p
On 28/09/2019 17:06, Gary Gregory wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 28, 2019 at 12:04 PM Gary Gregory
> wrote:
>
>> I can confirm that if I delete all of:
>>
>> src\native\windows\apps\prunmgr\WINXP_X86_GUI_RELEASE
>> src\native\windows\apps\prunsrv\WINXP_X86_EXE_RELEASE
>> src\native\windows\apps\prunsrv\WIN
On Sat, Sep 28, 2019 at 12:04 PM Gary Gregory
wrote:
> I can confirm that if I delete all of:
>
> src\native\windows\apps\prunmgr\WINXP_X86_GUI_RELEASE
> src\native\windows\apps\prunsrv\WINXP_X86_EXE_RELEASE
> src\native\windows\apps\prunsrv\WINXP_X64_EXE_RELEASE
>
> I can build without errors bu
I can confirm that if I delete all of:
src\native\windows\apps\prunmgr\WINXP_X86_GUI_RELEASE
src\native\windows\apps\prunsrv\WINXP_X86_EXE_RELEASE
src\native\windows\apps\prunsrv\WINXP_X64_EXE_RELEASE
I can build without errors but with warnings:
.\..\..\apps\prunsrv\prunsrv.c(323): warning C499
On Sat, Sep 28, 2019 at 10:03 AM sebb wrote:
> On Sat, 28 Sep 2019 at 13:39, Gary Gregory wrote:
> >
> > It seems we provide too much in the src zip file like exe and obj files.
> > Also old pdb files because I get:
> >
> > .\..\..\src\cmdline.c: fatal error C1051: program database file,
> >
> '
On Sat, 28 Sep 2019 at 13:39, Gary Gregory wrote:
>
> It seems we provide too much in the src zip file like exe and obj files.
> Also old pdb files because I get:
>
> .\..\..\src\cmdline.c: fatal error C1051: program database file,
> 'C:\temp\rc\commons-daemon-1.2.2-src\src\native\windows\apps\pru
It seems we provide too much in the src zip file like exe and obj files.
Also old pdb files because I get:
.\..\..\src\cmdline.c: fatal error C1051: program database file,
'C:\temp\rc\commons-daemon-1.2.2-src\src\native\windows\apps\prunsrv\WINXP_X86_EXE_RELEASE\prunsrv-src.pdb',
has an obsolete f
I could build the unix binaries with the directions in the project. The java
builds with 8 and 11. The signatures look correct, and all the reports look
good.
+1
@Mark - if you do more than this for validating the release could you include
it either in the project or in the [VOTE] email?
> On
Hello all - could we get more votes here as we’re coming in on that 72 hour
point in the vote.
Cheers,
-Rob
> On Sep 25, 2019, at 10:57 AM, Mark Thomas wrote:
>
> A further regression has been identified in the 1.2.0/1.2.1 releases so
> I'd like to get 1.2.2 released to address it. So, time fo
On 25/09/2019 15:57, Mark Thomas wrote:
> [X] Approved - go ahead and release Commons Daemon 1.2.2 RC1 as 1.2.2
Tested a Tomcat 9.0.26 install that failed to start with 1.2.1 and it
starts cleanly with 1.2.2
Also double-checked that the configure script was in place.
Mark
---
A further regression has been identified in the 1.2.0/1.2.1 releases so
I'd like to get 1.2.2 released to address it. So, time for another
release vote.
Notable changes since 1.2.1 include:
- Correct a regression (DAEMON-408) that caused Windows services to
crash on start-up when the universal C
23 matches
Mail list logo
