httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "William A. Rowe, Jr." <>
Subject Re: [vote] 2.2.0 tarballs
Date Thu, 01 Dec 2005 10:06:37 GMT
Roy T. Fielding wrote:
> On Nov 30, 2005, at 10:12 PM, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
>> 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.

Ok, but did you try installing into a tree that has, say, a fink port of
svn based on apr 1.0 or 1.1?  We are (mostly) talking about where httpd
is finding stale APR versions related to non-httpd packages.  (Non-httpd,
because httpd never has shipped anything but alphas based on 1.0 or 1.1.)

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

Ack, as I suggested, let's kill it in the source distro.

> 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?

That's my -main- worry, those that didn't intend/deliberately install apr
at all, but picked up 1.0/1.1 from another package such as subversion.


View raw message