httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Roy T. Fielding" <field...@gbiv.com>
Subject Re: [vote] 2.2.0 tarballs
Date Thu, 01 Dec 2005 06:54:06 GMT
On Nov 30, 2005, at 10:12 PM, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
>
> I'm 100% conviced next to nobody on this list has been developing  
> and testing
> httpd-2.2/apr-1.2 without their own in-tree tweaks.  I'm as guilty  
> as anyone.
>
> So we've been compiling and improving the code, but the build/ 
> install status
> is -worse- than httpd-2.0, ergo this is not "the best version of  
> apache now
> available" and is -not- ready for GA.

I just built from scratch using the tarball and the same options
that any typical user would set: i.e.,

   ./configure --prefix=/dist/test22 --enable-modules=all

Zero problems.

I don't understand what you are talking about -- developers don't
run ./buildconf on the source package.  Only we do that.  Even after
I do a

   make extraclean
   ./buildconf
   ./configure --prefix=/dist/test22 --enable-modules=most

again I have zero problems.  The included versions of apr and apr-util
are used in all of my tests.  I've never installed apr-1.x in the OS
system libraries.  Why would anyone outside this list do that?

> Those hyper to release, why not make it usable by Joe anybody  
> instead of only
> httpd-dev hacker who's used to 'fudging the build'?

Whatever problem you are encountering, please fix it on trunk.

I see no evidence that it will cause people outside the APR core
development group any grief for httpd-2.2, and even then a workaround
can be described on the website.

....Roy

Mime
View raw message