Mailing-List: contact dev-help@httpd.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@httpd.apache.org
Date: Wed, 1 May 2002 09:31:09 -0700
From: Aaron Bannert <aaron@clove.org>
To: dev@httpd.apache.org
Subject: Re: ab.c versionining was Re: cvs commit: httpd-2.0/support ab.c
Message-ID: <20020501093109.O14899@clove.org>
Mail-Followup-To: Aaron Bannert <aaron@clove.org>, dev@httpd.apache.org
References: 
 <Pine.LNX.4.44.0205011136470.16487-100000@deepthought.cs.virginia.edu>
 <Pine.OSX.4.43.0205011751150.911-100000@mobile.webweaving.org>
 <20020501085857.J25026@apache.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20020501085857.J25026@apache.org>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.23i

On Wed, May 01, 2002 at 08:58:57AM -0700, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
> On Wed, May 01, 2002 at 05:54:49PM +0200, dirkx@covalent.net wrote:
> > Would it be that we need to put that APR version also in places like Error
> > Log or on the -V command line ? As to help people file more meaning ful
> > bug reports ?
> 
> At this point, I don't think so because httpd-2.0 will only work with
> specific versions of APR that must be in-tree.  Remember that people
> can only legitimately file bug reports off released versions.  People
> may file against HEAD, but if they do, their bug reports are usually
> of higher quality so that APR's version isn't an issue.
> 
> Once we're able to build httpd with an APR that is out-of-tree, I
> think this is probably something we might want to do.  But, that is
> a LONG ways away due to our build system.  -- justin

Since our eventual goal is to make APR an independently installed
library that httpd happens to use, wouldn't it make sense for httpd -V
to report the version that it happened to be linked against (dynamically
or statically)? To me it seems like those are the kinds of things we're
going to have to change later to accomodate the in-tree build dependency.

-aaron