apr-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "William A. Rowe, Jr." <wr...@rowe-clan.net>
Subject Re: [PATCH] Stop installing apr-config, and give clients an APR_FIND_APR that works with apr-1-config.
Date Fri, 16 Jul 2004 18:02:13 GMT
At 12:25 PM 7/16/2004, Max Bowsher wrote:
>Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
>> --On Friday, July 16, 2004 5:02 PM +0100 Max Bowsher <maxb@ukf.net> wrote:
>>
>>> And since svn, apache, etc. would need to manually import the new
>>> find_apr.m4 or rewrite their build system to use aclocal to get the new
>>> macro, it's not worth making this a default, when doing so sacrifices the
>>> guarantee that careless upgraders will be forced to notice this change.
>>
>> Considering aclocal is part of automake, there's zero chance of httpd or
>> Subversion ever using aclocal.
>>
>> The point isn't about the system install path, it's about people dropping
>in a
>> new find_ap{ru}.m4 to projects that already have it without doing any
>> modifications.  That is: what is the closest behavior to what we had
>> previously - to me that's clearly a default of '[1 0]'.
>
>I agree that [1 0] is closest, but I don't think what we have now is right!
>
>Once 1.0 is released, projects will have a real series of official tarballs
>on which they can base themselves. Unless they explicitly take action to
>repeatedly test compatiblility with 0.9, it's quite possible they will break
>compatibility with 0.9 without knowing it.
>
>If this happens, the compile will fail with some kind of undefined symbol
>error. It's much clearer and easier to debug (and more likely for people to
>post useful info to mailing lists when asking questions) if the configure
>stops when trying to find an APR.
>
>Therefore, I don't believe the macro distributed with apr-1 should find
>apr-0 unless it is explicitly asked to do so.

WAIT!!! you got it upside down :)

Folks already invoke APR_FIND_APR.  They may have merged it into
aclocal - as autoconf suggests they do.

Only 0.9.x has been released.  Ergo, only 0.9 is expected, today, when 
an application invokes APR_FIND_APR.

Tomorrow (next week, what have you) an APR 1.0 will exist.  It isn't
compatible.  New app developers will learn only APR 1.0, but they can
add a little effort to APR_FIND_APR(,,,1) for their application.

A few users, then, will check the version and support both 0, 1, but they
will be the absolute exception - not a rule.  In fact, the only sensible
reason I can think of not to just adopt 1.0, is that you are an apache
or svn module author who must remain compatible with older builds.

If the default remains apr-0, then nothing is broken, because nothing
has been released on top of apr-1 yet.  But if the default changes, then
older apps supporting only apr-0 may be broken.

Bill




Mime
View raw message