Mailing-List: contact dev-help@apr.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Message-ID: <3D4B1D42.4090407@apache.org>
Date: Fri, 02 Aug 2002 17:01:06 -0700
From: Ian Holsman <ianh@apache.org>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US;
 rv:1.1b) Gecko/20020723
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: dev@httpd.apache.org
CC: "'APR Development List'" <dev@apr.apache.org>
Subject: Re: cvs commit: httpd-2.0/build httpd_roll_release
References: <5.1.0.14.2.20020801150329.034cc440@pop3.rowe-clan.net>
 <aic7tp$8bv$2@flame.holsman.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
> At 03:32 PM 8/1/2002, Ryan Bloom wrote:
> 
>> > From: William A. Rowe, Jr. [mailto:wrowe@rowe-clan.net]
>> >
>> > At 11:42 AM 8/1/2002, you wrote:
>> > >ianh        2002/08/01 09:42:33
>> > >
>> > >   Modified:    build    httpd_roll_release
>> > >   Log:
>> > >   we need apr-iconv now
>> >
>> > Even if we don't build it, this is extremely good practice that the 
>> folks
>> > rolling and releasing the tarball TAG the apr-iconv tree in sync with
>> > the current apr and apr-util trees..
>>
>> I completely disagree.  The problem is that the httpd_roll_release
>> script is for rolling httpd releases, not APR releases.  This change
>> doesn't help people realize that they have to tag APR-iconv before they
>> can release httpd.
> 
> 
> Amazing that we tag APR at all, no?
> 
>>   I really agree with Cliff, the change to pull
>> apr-iconv out of APR is annoying, and it is going to cause problems.  I
>> understand that it is the "best" solution we have right now, it is still
>> a bad solution.
> 
> 
> Of course it is bad.  That's why I suggest a separate tarball for iconv.
> 
> But it doesn't matter, we need trees in-sync, so apr-iconv must be tagged
> with apr's tags, from here forwards.  If you want to do that as an rtag,
> that would be fine too.

ok.. so.. i'm not sure if this has been resolved.
should we include the apr-iconv is the source distribution tarball,
or only have it in the win32 zipfile. my personal opinion is that is 
should be in both, as some win32 users will just download the tarball 
and this would be confusing.
> 
> Bill
>