Mailing-List: contact dev-help@apr.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Errors-To: <wrowe@rowe-clan.net>
Message-Id: <6.0.2.0.2.20040416133113.05ebbec0@pop3.rowe-clan.net>
Date: Fri, 16 Apr 2004 13:36:12 -0500
To: Cliff Woolley <jwoolley@virginia.edu>
From: "William A. Rowe, Jr." <wrowe@rowe-clan.net>
Subject: Re: tagged 0.9.5 pre1
Cc: dev@apr.apache.org
In-Reply-To: <Pine.GSO.4.58.0403150034410.4571@cobra.cs.Virginia.EDU>
References: <Pine.GSO.4.58.0403150034410.4571@cobra.cs.Virginia.EDU>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

At 12:36 AM 3/15/2004, Cliff Woolley wrote:

>Let me know if you have specific things you want to see in 0.9.5 (that are
>doable in say a day's time... nothing more than that).

Ok, after playing in an entirely-seperate build of apr, apr-util, and finally
httpd, I came across something that disturbs me on Unix.

Greg modified to install into include/apr-0 some time ago.  Good in theory.

However, what are applications expected to do w.r.t. that include tree?
If they are installed systemwide in /usr/include/apr-0 or /usr/local/include/apr-0
then do we expect the user to be able to #include "apr-0/apr_foo.h"?

If we do, the current environment is borked.  Our individual include files
have their own #include "apr.h" and other sub-includes, which are altogether
broken if the user follows the #include "apr-0/apr_foo.h" model.

Comments, observations, thoughts?

Bill