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] 0.9.x backport of the "make apr-util compilable without apr source" change
Date Fri, 10 Feb 2006 20:31:35 GMT
Max Bowsher wrote:
> Joe Orton wrote:
> 
>> On Mon, Oct 31, 2005 at 04:45:41PM -0000, Max Bowsher wrote:
>>
>>> Currently, apr-util 0.9.x requires that apr source be available in 
>>> order to
>>> configure and make.
>>>
>>> This makes it awkward to package apr-util using a packaging system. This
>>> overly close coupling has already been fixed in 1.x, and I'd like 
>>> 0.9.x to
>>> get the benefit too.
>>
>>
>> I'm not sure that's strong enough motivation to put this in 0.9.x and
>> risk breaking the build in some new and interesting way.  (I introduced
>> at least one regression during those changes IIRC)
> 
> 
> That's true, but since then, those changes have been in all apr versions 
> since 1.0.0, so the final fixed form of the changes has had extensive 
> testing.
> 
> The patches are also not very complex.
> 
> There is always some risk of breaking something when introducing 
> changes, but I think in this case it is rather small.

If you would like to commit this, I'm willing to validate on Solaris x86 in my
more-sophisticated VPATH build environment, that all is well.

I presume you are only talking about ./configure portability against installed
apr trees; the ./buildconf would still use the source apr distribution, right?

Bill

Mime
View raw message