httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "William A. Rowe, Jr." <>
Subject Re: cvs commit: httpd-2.0/build httpd_roll_release
Date Sat, 03 Aug 2002 00:29:09 GMT
At 07:01 PM 8/2/2002, Ian Holsman wrote:
>William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
>>At 03:32 PM 8/1/2002, Ryan Bloom wrote:
>>> > From: William A. Rowe, Jr. []
>>> > At 11:42 AM 8/1/2002, you wrote:
>>> > >ianh        2002/08/01 09:42:33
>>> > >
>>> > >   we need apr-iconv now
>>> >
>>> > Even if we don't build it, this is extremely good practice that the folks
>>> > rolling and releasing the tarball TAG the apr-iconv tree in sync with
>>> > the current apr and apr-util trees..
>>>I completely disagree.  The problem is that the httpd_roll_release
>>>script is for rolling httpd releases, not APR releases.  This change
>>>doesn't help people realize that they have to tag APR-iconv before they
>>>can release httpd.
>>Of course it is bad.  That's why I suggest a separate tarball for iconv.
>>But it doesn't matter, we need trees in-sync, so apr-iconv must be tagged
>>with apr's tags, from here forwards.  If you want to do that as an rtag,
>>that would be fine too.
>ok.. so.. i'm not sure if this has been resolved.
>should we include the apr-iconv is the source distribution tarball,
>or only have it in the win32 zipfile. my personal opinion is that is 
>should be in both, as some win32 users will just download the tarball and 
>this would be confusing.

Win32 users that grab the tarball do so at their own peril anyways
[you cannot plug in lf-lineended files into microsoft's vc tools or ide.]

This should be a separate tarball for those interested in it for any
non-Unix platform anyways.

I promised my weekend to straighten out iconv/openssl/zlib/ldap
dependencies on win32.  It will be a hack, but we won't require iconv.

And we still need to tag the puppy every time around, until [as rbb
points out] we use specific version tags of APR rather than an HTTPD


View raw message