devel/p5-Net-Server update

Previous Topic Next Topic
 
classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
5 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

devel/p5-Net-Server update

Nick Nauwelaerts
On Mon, 23 Jan 2006 10:58:41 -0700 (MST)
Steven Mestdagh <[hidden email]> wrote:

> CVSROOT: /cvs
> Module name: ports
> Changes by: [hidden email] 2006/01/23 10:58:41
>
> Modified files:
> devel/p5-Net-Server: Makefile distinfo
> Added files:
> devel/p5-Net-Server/patches:
>                             patch-lib_Net_Server_PreForkSimple
>                             _pm
>                             patch-lib_Net_Server_PreFork_pm
>
> Log message:
> update to 0.90
>
> from Jasper Lievisse Adriaanse
> fix man pages while here.

No need to pass this by the maintainer? I know we discussed 0.89, but
never did I see 0.90.


// nick

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: devel/p5-Net-Server update

steven mestdagh
On Mon, Jan 23, 2006 at 09:58:02PM +0100, Nick Nauwelaerts wrote:

> On Mon, 23 Jan 2006 10:58:41 -0700 (MST)
> Steven Mestdagh <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> > CVSROOT: /cvs
> > Module name: ports
> > Changes by: [hidden email] 2006/01/23 10:58:41
> >
> > Modified files:
> > devel/p5-Net-Server: Makefile distinfo
> > Added files:
> > devel/p5-Net-Server/patches:
> >                             patch-lib_Net_Server_PreForkSimple
> >                             _pm
> >                             patch-lib_Net_Server_PreFork_pm
> >
> > Log message:
> > update to 0.90
> >
> > from Jasper Lievisse Adriaanse
> > fix man pages while here.
>
> No need to pass this by the maintainer? I know we discussed 0.89, but
> never did I see 0.90.

how much time do you need? two weeks seems reasonable to me.  a diff for
0.90 was posted to this list, and you have never mentioned 0.89.
http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=openbsd-ports&m=113683159803362&w=2

steven

Disclaimer: http://www.kuleuven.be/cwis/email_disclaimer.htm

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: devel/p5-Net-Server update

Nick Nauwelaerts
On Tue, 24 Jan 2006 06:30:23 +0100
steven mestdagh <[hidden email]> wrote:

> > No need to pass this by the maintainer? I know we discussed 0.89,
> > but never did I see 0.90.
>
> how much time do you need? two weeks seems reasonable to me.  a diff
> for 0.90 was posted to this list, and you have never mentioned 0.89.
> http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=openbsd-ports&m=113683159803362&w=2

Enough time to find out why forking servers don't work for me? I thought
maintaining ports was making sure they actually work, not just sending
diffs whenever an update comes out.

// nick

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: devel/p5-Net-Server update

steven mestdagh
On Tue, Jan 24, 2006 at 07:25:28AM +0100, Nick Nauwelaerts wrote:

> On Tue, 24 Jan 2006 06:30:23 +0100
> steven mestdagh <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> > > No need to pass this by the maintainer? I know we discussed 0.89,
> > > but never did I see 0.90.
> >
> > how much time do you need? two weeks seems reasonable to me.  a diff
> > for 0.90 was posted to this list, and you have never mentioned 0.89.
> > http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=openbsd-ports&m=113683159803362&w=2
>
> Enough time to find out why forking servers don't work for me? I thought
> maintaining ports was making sure they actually work, not just sending
> diffs whenever an update comes out.

Yes, it is. As I told you, I cannot reproduce this problem and forking
servers work fine here. I think the changelog justified this maintenance
update.

steven

Disclaimer: http://www.kuleuven.be/cwis/email_disclaimer.htm

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: devel/p5-Net-Server update

Nick Nauwelaerts
On Tue, 24 Jan 2006 08:01:50 +0100
steven mestdagh <[hidden email]> wrote:

> > Enough time to find out why forking servers don't work for me? I
> > thought maintaining ports was making sure they actually work, not
> > just sending diffs whenever an update comes out.
>
> Yes, it is. As I told you, I cannot reproduce this problem and forking
> servers work fine here. I think the changelog justified this
> maintenance update.

From the test I did yesterday & today (as said in private mail I would)
I can say that it doesn't work on i386 -current from early december, but
does work on 3.9-beta. Version of the module doesn't matter, as both
.88, .89 & .90 did not fork before that date, but do now.
I don't see why, the only thing which changed in perl during that time
was the int overflow fix.

// nick