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: autoconf/libtool for apr and for httpd, Was: Re: Time for 1.3.3
Date Wed, 17 Sep 2008 20:24:13 GMT
Rainer Jung wrote:
> 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.

Either autoconf 2.61 or autoconf 2.63 given the endian-ness issues.
Although I count on fedora 8 and 9 for most of my needs, I don't use
it for my build toolchain.  Peeking in on the status of 2.63 now.

> 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?

Well, that issue is that we have two different RM's.  We could obviously
change the release.sh script to insist on one specific version, but we
again have to keep apr and httpd release.sh scripts in sync with each

Let's hope that in httpd-2.4, "bundled apr" can be done away with?  At
least by httpd-3.0.

> 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.

We do :)

View raw message