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] 2.2.0 tarballs
Date Thu, 01 Dec 2005 01:10:37 GMT
Colm MacCarthaigh wrote:
> 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.

I read this a bit backwards of your interpretation;

  * admins who install 1.1 for some specific reason are responsible to
    ensure they deal with the new package correctly (e.g., we give them
    a message upon configure "Found old APR 1.1.0, installing APR 1.2.2
    for you" and let them decide what to do.  99% of the time, they must
    follow our advise and install 1.2.2 in the same prefix/ as httpd.)

  * the vast majority of users, who only have apr 1.0/1.1 due to svn or
    other intrapackage dependencies, get a free apr 1.2 without having
    to think about it.  Make this whole headache a noop for them.

And I for one don't want the headaches of the users@ trouble reports.  I'd
really prefer to see those who help out on users@ answering this objection,
as opposed to the hackers who are detached from the user community pushing
this out +1 over those user-supporters objections.

Bill

Mime
View raw message