Mailing-List: contact dev-help@apr.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: domain of jim@jagunet.com designates
 209.133.199.10 as permitted sender)
Cc: APR Development List <dev@apr.apache.org>
Message-Id: <262DC6DB-0D0E-47ED-ADCD-BFFE4A370D1E@jaguNET.com>
From: Jim Jagielski <jim@jaguNET.com>
To: Rainer Jung <rainer.jung@kippdata.de>
In-Reply-To: <48D16330.9020205@kippdata.de>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed; delsp=yes
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v929.2)
Subject: Re: autoconf/libtool for apr and for httpd, Was: Re: Time for 1.3.3
Date: Fri, 19 Sep 2008 15:45:54 -0400
References: <489B54EB.7010300@apache.org> <200808072323.09488.sf@sfritsch.de>
 <489B6CEA.7090205@rowe-clan.net>
 <200808080024.22344.sf@sfritsch.de>	 <20080807224601.GC686@suse.de>
 <489B7D47.5080608@rowe-clan.net>
 <1218155436.25598.143.camel@shrek.rexursive.com>
 <48D16330.9020205@kippdata.de>


On Sep 17, 2008, at 4:06 PM, 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.
>

I've downgraded on my release machine to 2.61