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: apr_reslist semantics
Date Mon, 12 May 2008 22:38:44 GMT
Nick Kew wrote:
> 
> +1 to taking time for this.  But at the moment we're in danger of
> doing a rushed/botched job on a get-it-out-for-httpd-2.2.9 agenda.
> That's basically because noone has been thinking of 1.3 as a
> release candidate until the last couple of weeks, so we haven't
> given sufficient thought to loose ends.

One more thought; if Jim in anxious to roll and we need to roll 1.2.x
that's fine by me.

With httpd-2.0, I had patched apu-config to report ldap bindings entirely
separately from the core bindings.  That worked great, because next to
nothing was abstracted, and mod_ldap/util_ldap alone were bound to the
ldap bindings.  The various support/ tools and core httpd loaded just fine
without all the cruft.

With httpd-2.2 and apr-1, this is now impossible, so I consider 2.2 to
be essentially broken for practical purposes (except for rolling it on
each and every machine individually).  It's really somewhat shabby.

So I don't have any opinion on a 2.2.9 without apr-1.3.0 + dynamic ldap.
If folks want it now, great.  I'm only keen to rip these direct bindings
out of httpd, and even out of the core of apu, leaving us with a very
clean server until a user actually uses ldap auth modules, and a release
of 1.2.x is no skin off my back.

Do folks feel we should release "an apr+apu" this friday?  If 1.3.0 has
settled in, then that is the release.  If not, a final 1.2.x release
instead, in the interim?

Bill


Mime
View raw message