Bumping vendored uriparser

[imtherealnaska]

Rationale for this change

Bumping up the version of uriparser

What changes are included in this PR?

All files from upstream git tag uriparser-1.0.2 following the process in cpp/src/arrow/vendored/uriparser/README.md

Are these changes tested?

Yes. No new tests were added.

Are there any user-facing changes?

No.

Help needed from reviewers

1. I am not too sure where else the changes must be propagated. Places like README were clear , but any other place idk .

AI Usage :

Did a preliminary review with claude ,it suggested some licenses.txt has 0.9.3 wordings . Please let me know if that is something you would be interested in .

[github-actions]

Thanks for opening a pull request!

This pull request has been automatically converted to a draft because its title doesn't match Arrow's required format.

If this is not a minor PR. Could you open an issue for this pull request on GitHub? https://github.com/apache/arrow/issues/new/choose

Opening GitHub issues ahead of time contributes to the Openness of the Apache Arrow project.

Then could you also rename the pull request title in the following format?

GH-${GITHUB_ISSUE_ID}: [${COMPONENT}] ${SUMMARY}

or

MINOR: [${COMPONENT}] ${SUMMARY}

After updating the title, you can mark the pull request as ready for review.

See also:

• Other pull requests
• Contribution Guidelines - Contributing Overview

[pitrou]

Thanks @imtherealnaska . Actually, this is a lot of additional vendored code and perhaps it would be better to make it a mandatory external dependency... What do you think @rok@kou ?

[rok]

Thanks for opening this @imtherealnaska !
I don't have a strong opinion. Do we need the update?

[pitrou]

uriparser has had security fixes, so yes.

[pitrou]

Sorry @rok , I meant to ping @raulcd :)

[rok]

@pitrou Raul is away for some more time I think.

[pitrou]

@pitrou Raul is away for some more time I think.

Until Monday 7th I think.

[imtherealnaska]

Thanks @imtherealnaska . Actually, this is a lot of additional vendored code and perhaps it would be better to make it a mandatory external dependency... What do you think @rok@kou ?

Yes , but I saw this done some time ago #5865 . If you would like to have an external dependency, I can work on that.

[rok]

@imtherealnaska we better wait for @kou to reply so we can decide on the direction. And thanks for being flexible regarding the approach!

[imtherealnaska]

@imtherealnaska we better wait for @kou to reply so we can decide on the direction. And thanks for being flexible regarding the approach!

Sure. Happy to contribute

[kou]

Actually, this is a lot of additional vendored code and perhaps it would be better to make it a mandatory external dependency...

+1

Let's do it.