Mailing-List: contact dev-help@apr.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Message-ID: <00fc01c25b4e$8f50d050$7300a8c0@MITHRIL>
From: "David Reid" <dreid@jetnet.co.uk>
To: "APR Development List" <dev@apr.apache.org>
References: <20020913173631.GT1555@apache.org>
 <00f501c25b4d$307c0a00$7300a8c0@MITHRIL>
 <3D8224BA.2010605@electricjellyfish.net>
Subject: Re: [PROPOSAL] Create apr-build repository
Date: Fri, 13 Sep 2002 18:54:08 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

OK, this doesn't seem to gel with my original or current view of apr-util,
but then you guys have been adding all sorts of stuff in there so maybe it's
place in the world has altered. If that's the case then I'm still not sure
doing something like this is the correct way of doing it.

david

> David Reid wrote:
> > Not sure I like this. Shouldn't the other project just use the apr files
> > rather than copying their own versions?
> >
> > More context please...
>
> if the projects use the apr files, then you end up with the situation
> that apr-util is in now, where one cannot actually build apr-util
> separately from apr.  even if apr is installed on the system already,
> you actually have to have the apr directory tree sitting next to the
> apr-util directory tree or you can't even run configure.
>
> since apr-util is supposed to be a separate project, this seems like a
> pretty bad situation to me.  it would be one thing if apr installed the
> files on the system, where the build process of the other projects could
>   find and use it, but requiring you to actually have the source tree
> there seems a bit much.
>
> -garrett
>
>