httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Bill Stoddard" <b...@wstoddard.com>
Subject Re: Proposal: Future release strategies
Date Thu, 06 Sep 2001 18:47:51 GMT

> Ryan Bloom wrote:
>
> > We have no control over APR.  APR will not make a release just because
> > the web server wants it to.  Apache needs to either use an already released
> > APR, or it needs to specify a date/time to check out APR.
>
> We have no control over libc either, and yet we use that. Surely we can
> just consider APR a necessary external library that we link against -
> which has it's own release schedule - or is APR still too closely tied
> up with Apache for this to be practical?
>

I think APR is still changing too much for this to be practical. IMO, it would be a
serious mistake to attempt to ship apache httpd 2.0 w/o including a copy of APR that has
been tested with the server. APR is not (yet) libc.

> > > o Each of mod_ssl, mod_proxy and mod_ldap needs to be stripped into it's
> > > own archive, and the rollup script needs to be modified to produce a
> > > rollup tarball for these modules (or combined module).
> >
> > Woah.  Mod_ssl was put into the core for a reason.  I don't want to remove it
> > unless everybody wants to.
>
> I included it here because people mentioned that there were potential
> import/export problems still in some parts of the world. It's not that
> critical either way - in fact it is much more convenient if it is
> included inside the core.

+1 on mod_ssl and mod_proxy being included in the core. The last vote we had also
supported mod_proxy in the core. As far as I am concerned, mod_proxy can go in today...

>
> >  I am not sure that I even believe mod_ldap should
> > be a sub-project either.  I don't remember ever having that conversation.  But,
> > I will not stand in the way of it.
>
> Well - the vote on the table is to take the LDAP code out of Apache v2.0
> - but the next question is when it's removed, what do we do with it? I'm
> not keen on seeing it sit in limbo like mod_proxy has been for a while,
> which is why I would like to see something resolved on the rollup issue.
>

I will probably be a user of mod_ldap, but right now, I am inclined to remove it from the
core and put it in its own repository for the same reasons I want to keep mod_gz out. For
now.  I'd love to see mod_ldap come into the core in 2.1. Along with mod_esi... :-)

Bill



Mime
View raw message