From: Rainer Jung <rjung@apache.org>
Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2017 18:38:29 +0000 (+0000)
Subject: Rephrase comments by Yann in order to hopefully
X-Git-Tag: 2.4.29~6
X-Git-Url: https://granicus.if.org/sourcecode?a=commitdiff_plain;h=b1ea05a241d3626d10619cf04bb9fb7880b9b518;p=apache

Rephrase comments by Yann in order to hopefully
make the current situation clearer.

I hope the new text is OK for Yann, otherwise I
could revert and add as my own comment.

i think r1812339 should be an integral part of
the mod_journald backport and currently we do not
have any obstacle for the configure.in proposal.
The ap_expr fix was already backported, the
mod_remoteip fix does not apply to the 2.4 code
and the mod_journald fix IMHO should be voted and
applied together with the pending mod_journald
backport.


git-svn-id: https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/httpd/httpd/branches/2.4.x@1812432 13f79535-47bb-0310-9956-ffa450edef68
---

diff --git a/STATUS b/STATUS
index 89def4dfb8..882e0564ad 100644
--- a/STATUS
+++ b/STATUS
@@ -204,10 +204,9 @@ PATCHES PROPOSED TO BACKPORT FROM TRUNK:
                   http://svn.apache.org/r1812301
      2.4.x patch: svn merge -c 1812263,1812301 ^/httpd/httpd/trunk .
      +1: ylavic, rjung
-     ylavic: don't backport this before the one(s) below, or maintainer-mode in
-             2.4.x would -Werror, so depends on (to be completed?):
-                - mod_journald
-                - ap_expr
+     ylavic: if the below mod_journald proposal gets accepted, it will
+             also need a backport of r1812339, otherwise maintainer
+             mode builds will fail due to -Werror.
 
   *) mod_journald: Add new module mod_journald to log error logs into journald.
      trunk patch: http://svn.apache.org/r1610339
@@ -218,9 +217,9 @@ PATCHES PROPOSED TO BACKPORT FROM TRUNK:
                 mod_journald can't be configured in maintainer mode (-std=c89).
                 Can anyone else reproduce, or is it just my distro?
      ylavic: missing r1812339 for maintainer-mode/c89/-Werror compliance,
-             so either this is backported before configure.in above and we'll
-             add r1812339 to that proposal, or after and we'll add it to this
-             proposal (resetting the one or the other votes in any case...).
+             needed if the above configure.in proposal gets backported.
+             Note that r1812339 could be backported in any case, even if
+             the above configure.in proposal does not get accepted.
 
 
 PATCHES/ISSUES THAT ARE BEING WORKED