httpd-apreq-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Stas Bekman <>
Subject Re: cvs tagged as v1_1 (was Re: 1.1_rc4)
Date Sun, 12 Jan 2003 01:48:42 GMT
Joe Schaefer wrote:

>>I don't see any reason why not to create a whole new rep, like all
>>other projects do. Unless you plan to have this one only temporary
>>till the destiny of apreq2 is cleared up.
> That's my plan: to make apreq-2/ (for now) a *temporary* 
> location for apreq-2 development.  The directory structure I 
> have in mind looks something like this:
>   apreq-2/
>         httpd/       (server support for apreq-2)
>         c/           (libapreq-2.X.X  ???)
>         perl/        (stuff that should be in mod_perl-2)

It'll be in mod_perl-2.0 *only* if apreq becomes a part of the core, 
which I'm afraid won't happen. You can't do much if you aren't one of 
them, so I've tried to "bribe" a few of them but in vain and I think 
it's the best to forget about this option, move the project on as a 
standalone one and provide the perl glue internally just like 1.0 did.

The building code can be rewritten to find httpd-2.0 and build after 
httpd-2.0 has been built and optionally installed. It's definitely a bad 
idea to keep apreq-2.0 as a patch to httpd-2.0 any longer.

>         tcl/         (...)
>         php/
>         python/
>         java/

+1 on the layout. An alternative layout could be:


because /c/ is really a core. and putting all languages extensions in 
one dir will make it easy to 'make all' to build all extensions... just 
an idea.

> The apreq-2 directory shouldn't have a Makefile.PL
> to worry about, and I don't plan to put anything
> into any of the "language" directories right now;  
> just in httpd/.

But there is a problem with not doing that. If you distribute the 
package on CPAN you need Makefile.PL to be in the top tree.

>>Also would be nice to have the name consistent with httpd-2.0, 
>>modperl-2.0... => apreq-2.0.
> We'll certainly do that at the right time.  I don't think
> we're there yet, though.  IMO, the level of core support 
> we can rely on for 2.x, needs to be *explicit* before then.
> Based on dev@'s recent history regarding code contributions,
> I see no reason to expect them to accomodate us.  "Good faith"
> isn't a word I would attach to their decision regarding 
> Jon Travis' HTML parser.
> Alternatively, I could put cvs repository inside my apache 
> home directory, but I don't know how to make that available 
> through anoncvs.  Is that a possibility?

We all agree that waiting for httpd people to give a grace is a complete 
waste of time. I suggest that we ask Brian Behlendorf to create the 
apreq-2.0 repository and start working there. It's important for 
preserving the history of changes. I see no reason why not to do it 
*now*. Having a repository doesn't mean having a production version of 
the code.

Stas Bekman            JAm_pH ------> Just Another mod_perl Hacker     mod_perl Guide --->

View raw message