apr-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Max Bowsher <ma...@ukf.net>
Subject Re: [PATCH] 0.9.x backport of the "make apr-util compilable without apr source" change
Date Sat, 11 Feb 2006 12:30:02 GMT
Hash: SHA1

William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
> 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.

Thanks. I'll revisit the patch and commit it once my commit access is
set up. (Currently pending confirmation of ICLA receipt.)

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

That's correct.

Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (Cygwin)


View raw message