Re: svn commit: r1809570 - /subversion/branches/1.9.x/STATUS

Branko Čibej wrote on Wed, 27 Sep 2017 01:28 +0200:
> On 24.09.2017 23:23, danielsh_at_apache.org wrote:
> > +++ subversion/branches/1.9.x/STATUS Sun Sep 24 21:23:40 2017
> > @@ -76,6 +76,8 @@ Candidate changes:
> > ^/subversion/branches/1.9.x-r1808955
> > Votes:
> > +1: brane
> > + +0: danielsh (this works on OS X and Linux but nevertheless I wonder
> > + about its portability)
>
>
> It's as portable as 'httpd -V'. If someone builds with a patched httpd
> that does not print a the sever version with this option, then the
> script will fail.
>

Why would it fail? It neither does 'set -e' nor validates the value of $HTTPD_VERSION:

> > +HTTPD_VERSION=$("$HTTPD" -V -f $HTTPD_CFG | grep '^Server version:' | sed 's|^.*/\([0-9]*\.[0-9]*\.[0-9]*\).*$|\1|')

Besides, * in sed is greedy, so an output like

    Server version: Apache/2.4.50 (Counterexample Linux/1.2.3)

would DTWT.

> On the other hand, if we don't backport this change, the OSX tests on
> the 1.9.x branch will keep failing indefinitely because (a) 'configure'
> reports the wrong version of httpd, and (b) the 1.9.x tests do not have
> the concept of an httpd version whitelist.
>
> IMO it's more important to have reliable test results on supported
> branches than to support unlikely patches that people might come up with.

The patchset may be an improvement for OS X, but I am concerned that it
might introduce a regression for other platforms; that's why I didn't vote +1
on it.

Cheers,

Daniel
Received on 2017-09-28 14:42:01 CEST