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: [VOTE] 2.1.3 as beta
Date Wed, 23 Feb 2005 18:44:10 GMT
At 09:26 AM 2/23/2005, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
>--On Wednesday, February 23, 2005 10:09 AM +0100 Mladen Turk <mturk@apache.org>
wrote:
>
>>Well, the tarballs are unbuildable on WIN32.
>>The problem is with apr and apr-util provided with the tarball,
>>and broken build/win32ver.awk that creates invalid .rc files.
>>
>>If I use apr and apr-utils from HEAD, it builds fine.
>
>That's an issue that should cause the APR folks to release 1.1.1.  -- justin

-1 veto - there is no reason for us -not- to adopt apr 1.2.0.
I'm confused why we would be so pedantic as to not adopt a
current release?  APR signatures were broken on all 1.0/1.1
release for Win32, and yet, I see no reason why we shouldn't
just jump up to the version we want, and call it out as a
prerequisite.  From a version control perspective, this would
not be a subversion bump, it's a minor bump because we are now
actively maintaining a contract (broken for a long time, it seems.)

 From the mod_dav exports issue alone, I'm -1 calling this build
a beta.  It clearly isn't and needs to be fixed.

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
for a general distribution, so beta's should have those packages
as well.

Bill


Mime
View raw message