httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "William A. Rowe, Jr." <wr...@rowe-clan.net>
Subject Re: Q1: Rollup Release Format
Date Wed, 19 Sep 2001 01:28:28 GMT

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Ryan Bloom" <rbb@covalent.net>
To: <dev@httpd.apache.org>; "Cliff Woolley" <cliffwoolley@yahoo.com>
Sent: Tuesday, September 18, 2001 6:43 PM
Subject: Re: Q1: Rollup Release Format


> On Tuesday 18 September 2001 04:35 pm, Cliff Woolley wrote:
> > On Tue, 18 Sep 2001, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
> > > > o Option A: apache-2.x.x.tar.gz
> > > >
> > > >   Combines httpd-2.0, apr, apr-util, httpd-proxy and
> > > >   httpd-ldap and produces an apache rollup tree.
> > >
> > > +1 on Option A.  I think that anything else is going to be too
> > > confusing for end users.

+1 on Option A.

> > I also prefer option A.  My only question is do we really want to start
> > making a distinction between "apache" and "httpd"?  I don't think we do.
> > How about apache-bundle-2.x.x.tar.gz ?
>
> Regardless of how we do the roll-up, nont of our builds should have the
> word Apache in them.  The httpd project is the httpd project.  If we use the
> word Apache, then we are co-opting the Foundation's name, instead of
> the project name.

_IF_ we adopted option B, it should be httpd-bundle-x.x.x, but it appears the
people lean for option A.  In that case, it should be httpd-core-x.x.x and
httpd-extra-x.x.x  (httpd-modules sounds like we don't include a -single- 
module with httpd-core.  httpd-complete or the like sounds like they get the
whole package, or back to option B.)

In any case, I'm against B for a simple reason.  Many folks will grab the core
sources tarball, turn around, and grab the 'full' tarball.  What a waste of
our servers' bandwidth.

Bill




Mime
View raw message