Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-httpd-dev-archive@httpd.apache.org Received: (qmail 72620 invoked by uid 500); 19 Sep 2001 01:51:30 -0000 Mailing-List: contact dev-help@httpd.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dev@httpd.apache.org list-help: list-unsubscribe: list-post: Delivered-To: mailing list dev@httpd.apache.org Received: (qmail 72609 invoked from network); 19 Sep 2001 01:51:30 -0000 Errors-To: Message-ID: <029c01c140ad$b23481f0$96c0b0d0@roweclan.net> From: "William A. Rowe, Jr." To: , , "Cliff Woolley" References: <20010918234302.94DEC46DFC@koj.rkbloom.net> <028901c140ab$84ac1560$96c0b0d0@roweclan.net> Subject: Re: Q1: Rollup Release Format Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2001 20:50:01 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 X-Spam-Rating: daedalus.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N 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." To: ; ; "Cliff Woolley" Sent: Tuesday, September 18, 2001 8:28 PM Subject: Re: Q1: Rollup Release Format > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Ryan Bloom" > To: ; "Cliff Woolley" > 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 > > > >