apr-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Paul Querna <p...@querna.org>
Subject Re: [VOTE] APR versioning rules w.r.t. released snapshots
Date Tue, 15 Dec 2009 21:16:58 GMT
On Tue, Dec 15, 2009 at 12:59 PM, Branko Čibej <brane@xbc.nu> wrote:
> I'm not going to cast a vote here because I think the vote is a)
> premature, b) not carried out in the proper forum.
> If we assume that any part of APR that's bundled with httpd does not
> constitute an APR release -- and note that we're talking about related
> projects within the ASF, not some random pair of projects -- then httpd
> has no business bundling unreleased APR bits in its release tarballs,
> but should only used released APR versions and/or point at existing APR
> tarballs.
> I completely agree with Bill that it's entirely irrelevant whether a
> release is named alpha or don't-touch or whatever; if it's in /dist,
> it's a release. The only question is if it's also a release of APR or not.
> Bill's concerns about not intercoursing users by breaking a released ABI
> are valid.
> Everybody else's responses that "it's an alpha" are ... at this time
> indeterminate, and IMNSHO not subject to politics (i.e., voting) but to
> technical arguments. "It's just a few users" is not a technical
> argument, I think you'll all agree.
> Specifically: if I build and install the APR from that bespoke httpd
> tarball, what does apr-1-config --version say?
>    * If the answer is 1.4.0, the user will believe they just installed
>      an APR release.
>    * If the answer is 1.4.0-dev, then it's clearly a development
>      snapshot and all bets are off.


from the dev snapshot version bundled with httpd 2.3.4-alpha:
#define APR_MAJOR_VERSION       1
#define APR_MINOR_VERSION       4
#define APR_PATCH_VERSION       0

View raw message