httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Joe Orton <jor...@redhat.com>
Subject Re: [VOTE] 2.1.3 as beta
Date Fri, 25 Feb 2005 10:46:46 GMT
On Wed, Feb 23, 2005 at 10:22:12PM +0000, Nick Kew wrote:
> William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
> 
> > As to Nick's comment, I certainly agree with your position, there
> > is not enough adoption of APR to -not- roll in the apr/apr-util
> 
> Isn't that chicken-and-egg?  APR is seen as part of Apache(httpd)
> by everyone outside a small core, most of whom probably subscribe
> to this list.
> 
> Site Valet distributed (a subset of) APR.  If I had reason to expect
> people to have APR installed in a standard place, I'd love to stop
> doing that.  I'm sure that's far from being the only application:
> it just happens to be the one I'm responsible for.
> 
> If we're serious about APR having a life of its own, let's put our
> money where our mouth is and unbundle them.  As soon as that happens,
> APR will get packaged in all the distros.  It works for me:
> httpd-2.1 builds and runs with APR-1.x.  If it fails on some
> platforms, that's simply a bug that needs fixing before release.

Hey! All you folks out there who were having build issues - don't worry,
help is at hand.  With *this* release you just have to get *three*
tarballs configured and built correctly together instead of one!  It's
*so* much better for you, can't you tell?  </sarcasm>

But back in the real world: +1 on only shipping released versions of APR
and apr-util in tarballs, definitely the right thing to do.

joe

Mime
View raw message