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 01:50:01 GMT
I'm sorry - I've transformed the entire schema.

Yes, I'm +1 for the 'real' option A.

My concerns about it remain - folks will download the 'lite' core version, only
to turn around and download the 'full' version.

And yes, something like httpd-complete would be a very nice name.

Bill

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "William A. Rowe, Jr." <wrowe@rowe-clan.net>
To: <dev@httpd.apache.org>; <rbb@covalent.net>; "Cliff Woolley" <cliffwoolley@yahoo.com>
Sent: Tuesday, September 18, 2001 8:28 PM
Subject: Re: Q1: Rollup Release Format


> 
> ----- 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