apr-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Rainer Jung <rainer.j...@kippdata.de>
Subject autoconf/libtool for apr and for httpd, Was: Re: Time for 1.3.3
Date Wed, 17 Sep 2008 20:06:08 GMT
Bojan Smojver schrieb:
> On Thu, 2008-08-07 at 17:55 -0500, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
>> Thanks Peter, it begs the question from my last note, should we refuse
>> any 2.62 for packaging via our scripts, or just let it slide?
>> My gutcheck says simply refuse 2.62.
> I would generate our configure with 2.61 (for which we know is good) and
> let others choose their own. In many cases, distributions are shipping
> their own patches to 2.62 that are addressing the problem, so no need to
> ban 2.62 outright.

What will be used, once httpd 2.2.10 with bundled apr/apr-util gets
prepared? Last time (2.2.9), httpd configure plus those inside
srclib/apr(-util) got generated with autoconf 2.62.

I noticed, that more generally, httpd-bundled apr(-util) do not
necessarily use the same autoconf and libtool versions as the standalone
ones, even when they are released shortly after each other. Would it
make sense to keep changes small in general to avoid surprises when
switching from bundled apr(-util) to standalone, even when using the
same version?

Of course the release managers environment is not automatically the
same. The other possibility would be to really include the released
apr(-util) inside httpd without regenerating configure and libtool.

Don't know, if I should send this to httpd-dev, but I assume most
relevant people read both lists.



View raw message