apr-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Aaron Bannert <aa...@clove.org>
Subject Re: cvs commit: apr-util CHANGES apu-config.in
Date Thu, 19 Sep 2002 19:13:56 GMT
On Thu, Sep 19, 2002 at 11:50:04AM -0700, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 19, 2002 at 11:09:01AM -0700, Aaron Bannert wrote:
> > As I said when apr-config and apu-config were created, it should ONLY
> > be used from an independently installed APR or APR-UTIL.
> For those not on the flood dev list, we've had this discussion
> there before.  Basically, I disagree with you 100%.
> I believe we must continue to support bundling of apr and apr-util.
> apr and apr-util do not have the critical mass to not support
> bundling.  Requiring users of httpd or Subversion or flood to
> separately install versions of apr and apr-util seems a path to
> disaster if we want people to use projects which use APR.
> I believe we must continue to support bundling, and I've yet to see
> why you think it will make people's lives easier if we mandate that
> we unbundle everything.  To reiterate my point, I do support the
> notion of unbundled installs, but I demand that it doesn't come at
> the price of losing bundled installs either.  -- justin

Woah there. I'm just talking about apr-config and apu-config. Those
scripts are there to help projects find and use and installed version
of APR and APR-UTIL. I don't have any problem with projects that still
wish to bundle it in their own source tree, as was necessary before
apr-config and apu-config existed. Bundling is, however, the old way
of doing it, and not the prefered way of using APR. Therefore I don't
understand why it's necessary to add support for the old way of using
APR into the scripts for the new way.


View raw message