On Dec 14, 2009 9:04pm, "William A. Rowe Jr." <wrowe@rowe-clan.net> wrote:

> About apr-util compat, I'm only voting/vetoing around user-expectations,
>
> not developer expectations.  Paul and I agree that we shouldn't be working
>
> to accommodate a *developer* who programs against an API that shipped by
>
> httpd labeled '-alpha'.  It wasn't an apr-util release, they shouldn't
>
> have any such expectations.
>
>
>
> We ought to anticipate the *user* who has either 1) built packages against
>
> apr-util-1.4.x and then installs this httpd package apr-util-1.4.0-dev,
>
> and *silently* breaks their apps built against 1.4.x (I don't care if they
>
> get an emit that apr_foo can't be found because they overwrote a good
>
> apr-util release with an httpd package), or who has 2) built packages that
>
> compile successfully against apr-util-1.4.0-dev from their httpd install,
>
> but actually target apr-util-1.4.x, and they return to update their
>
> apr-util-1.4.0-dev with apr-util-1.4.x, *silently* breaking their packages.

The previous paragraph acknowledges that we aren't worried if somebody codes against in-flux APIs in that apr-util packaged with httpd 2.3.4. What is the problem scenario here? How can the exchange of apr-util-1.4.0-dev with apr-util 1.4.1 hurt unless the user has some code that relies on in-flux APIs?