httpd-apreq-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Bojan Smojver <bo...@rexursive.com>
Subject Re: apr-related ABI issues for apreq2 packagers
Date Mon, 24 Jan 2005 06:12:05 GMT
Quoting Joe Schaefer <joe+gmane@sunstarsys.com>:

> Currently libapreq2 is source-compatible with the
> 0.9.x and 1.x versions of libapr and libaprutil.
> One issue that a package manager might need to
> deal with, if they're installing libapreq2 in a
> system-wide location like /usr/lib or /usr/local/lib,
> is which of apr's ABI to compile it against.  Whatever
> choice they make will only work for one of httpd's
> 2.0 or 2.2.

In terms of distros like Fedora and RHEL, usually only one version of httpd (and
therefore APR) is being shipped in the system location, so it only makes sense
to make a binary libapreq2 for that particular one.

Personally, I simply mark the binary packages with the distro version they are
for. For instance:

libapreq2-2.04_dev-4.03.FC3.i386.rpm

Meaning, this is a "Fedora Core 3" binary, so there is no confusion. If someone
downloads the source RPM and rebuilds it on, say Fedora Core 2, the spec file
automatically makes:

libapreq2-2.04_dev-4.03.FC2.i386.rpm

On Red Hat Enterprise Linux 3, it makes:

libapreq2-2.04_dev-4.03.RHEL3.i386.rpm

And so on. People that experiment with Apache 2.1/2.2 usually build their own
stuff from source (i.e. not packaged), so the explicit libraries for libapreq2
live in completely different locations (e.g. /usr/local).

At present there is no pressing need to multi version libapreq2 on all those Red
Hat related distros, but if at some point Red Hat start shipping multiple
version of httpd/APR, it should be relatively easy to adjust to any convention
that becomes accepted.

--
Bojan

Mime
View raw message