httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Paul Querna <>
Subject Re: svn commit: r158303 - httpd/httpd/trunk/buildconf
Date Tue, 22 Mar 2005 05:11:05 GMT
Sander Striker wrote:
> William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
>> At 11:26 PM 3/19/2005, wrote:
>>> Author: pquerna
>>> Date: Sat Mar 19 21:26:22 2005
>>> New Revision: 158303
>>> URL:
>>> Log:
>>> Test for APR and APR-Util one directory bellow httpd too.  I like not 
>>> having to put them inside srclib.
>> <grumf> I'm not keen on this change, since it complicates things
>> unnecessarily - some day we discover a tag and roll organized like 
>> this out of the blue?
> What do you mean?  I thought that the future goal was to unbundle apr*
> in httpd releases?  So you're afraid of tagged and rolled (actually only
> rolled, since tags don't include apr* anyway) tarballs that don't
> contain srclib/apr* before we actually wish to unbundle?  Isn't that
> the RM's responsibility?

My feeling is that it is the RM's responsibility.  It does tell you 
which APR/APR-Util path it is using, so it doesn't leave you completely 

>> Does config.nice not do what you want?  Especially if you rename
>> it with all your absolute options that you don't tweak?
> I don't see how that would help towards the unbundling goal.  Also for
> development purposes it's way more convenient to allow apr* next to
> httpd as to require it be in srclib/.

Yep, i was tried of passing --with-apr and --with-apr-util to 
./buildconf -- this has nothing to do with ./config.nice, and I thought 
making a ./buildconf.nice would of been a little excessive.


View raw message