httpd-apreq-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Bojan Smojver <>
Subject Re: libapreq2 2.06 submitted to Freshmeat
Date Fri, 05 Aug 2005 11:29:11 GMT
On Fri, 2005-08-05 at 12:43 +0300, Ville Skyttä wrote:

> > Is it optimal to have apr.tag and apu.tag in libapreq2-devel, or would
> > they be better placed in apr-devel and apr-util-devel, where the
> > corresponding docs are, too?

Ideally, those would be packaged with apr-devel and apr-util-devel, but
if we want that, we'll need to persuade Red Hat folk maintaining Fedora
to rebuild those RPMS. Probably doable, but may require bigger effort.
For now, we can just use Joe's hard work of putting those tag files into
libapreq2 distro.

I'm pretty certain that new version of APR and APU already include tag
files, so once Apache 2.1/2.2 hits the distros, they will be in there.

> > The *.tag files contain <path>s to /home/joe/src/apache/... which
> > obviously isn't a valid path for others than Joe.  Should I change that
> > to something else?  If yes, should it point to the dir containing the
> > referenced headers (/usr/include/...), or their HTML docs
> > (/usr/share/doc/...)?

One uses installdox script to hose those links once the docs are being
"fixed up". So, it probably doesn't even matter, it's just cosmetics.
But, it looks much nicer if you point that to the real docs tree, so
kudos for doing it :-)

> > I opted for the docs dir in the above and rolled test packages, it'd be
> > great if you could check them out before I commit:
> >

Downloaded and tried. Works a treat.

> > On a related note, using (product "Fedora Extras",
> > component libapreq2) for bug reports and RFE's is the preferred issue
> > report channel for this package, feedback there is more likely to be
> > noticed and less likely to fall through the cracks.

Cool. I prefer that too. If I need a fix next time, I'll use Bugzilla.


View raw message