httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Colm MacCarthaigh <>
Subject Re: [vote] 2.2.0 tarballs
Date Thu, 01 Dec 2005 00:49:47 GMT
On Wed, Nov 30, 2005 at 06:33:51PM -0600, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
> Ok, so explain to me why we wasted a MB or two distributing srclib/apr/
> and srclib/apr-util/ when the result is;

That's not the result when you don't have apr/apu 1.x [x:<2] installed.
apr and apr-util 1.2 are bundled for reasons of pragmatic convienence,
recognising that the vast majority of people don't have these already.

If apr 1.0 or 1.1 happen to be installed, I don't see why it's not
reasonable to fail to configure. The administrator may intend to link
against the system version, they may not want httpd having its own
libapr. And they're the only people capable of making that decision and
hence resolving the conflict. They can decide to install over their
existing apr, or to install a new one just for httpd.

I brought this exact issue up weeks ago, and it didn't go very far. I
was originally -1, for the very same reasons you are, but having thought
about it decided that yes, while the present system introduces some
inconvienence for a small fraction of users, it doesn't try to second
guess them either, and unbundling apr/apr-util would represent a huge
inconvienence to a large fraction of users.

Colm MacCárthaigh                        Public Key:

View raw message