apr-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Gregg Smith <...@gknw.net>
Subject Re: Time for APR 2.0?
Date Thu, 27 Aug 2015 08:45:05 GMT
On 8/26/2015 9:56 PM, William A Rowe Jr wrote:
> On Aug 26, 2015 11:41 PM, "Branko Čibej"<brane@apache.org>  wrote:
>> On 27.08.2015 06:37, Branko Čibej wrote:
>>> On 27.08.2015 05:46, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
>>>> Several years ago, we combined the functionality of apr and apr-util,
>>>> and that library no longer draws in sub-dependencies until specific
>>>> components are necessary (dbm providers, dbd providers, crypto
>>>> providers etc).
>>>>
>>>> It seems overtime that we produce a release based on that effort, I'm
>>>> offering in absence of other volunteers to prepare an -alpha candidate
>>>> in mid-September.
>>>>
>>>> We don't work on the same clock as downstream distributors, so
>>>> whatever effort we make in Sept won't see broad distribution until
>>>> 2016.  But if the httpd, svn and other consumers have successfully
>>>> integrated with the 2.0 trunk/ development effort, it seems like this
>>>> is a good time to begin to make that happen.
>>>>
>>>> Thoughts/comments/roadblocks/showstoppers?
>>> Good move.
>>>
>>> There are a few long-outstanding patches from the SVN devs that I'd like
>>> to get into the code first, so mid-September is a good goal.
>> On that topic, what would it take to take the Windows cmake build off
>> 'experimental' status for 2.0 and remove the .dsp and .mak files?
> IMVHO?
>
> 1. Purge the dsp/mak files.
>
> 2. Promote cmake structure to create valid win or unix or other builds.
>
> I am personally very interested in this effort and will jump on some
> aspects of it this week.

First I must state that I am not against CMake or getting  it off of 
'experimental' status, I'm glad we have the option now. I am for 
promoting it and  for not even mentioning the old school way in whatever 
readme there is on building.

I am against removing the dsw/dsp however (there are no mak/dep files). 
It's not a huge load, there's only 24 files counting all the crypto, 
dbd, dbm and test dsp/dsw/win out of the 631. You barely notice them if 
you're not looking for them. I would not be against chucking out the 
dbd_freetds and even the sqlite2 dsp files which is then 23/22.

VC10 is rather hopeless but 11 on seems workable. Renaming the dll and 
lib projects to -2 will stop the insensate whining about. This should 
not be a problem in 2.0.

Let's not remove them and just act like they're not there.



Mime
View raw message