Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-httpd-dev-archive@www.apache.org Received: (qmail 53586 invoked from network); 11 May 2007 00:46:39 -0000 Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (140.211.11.2) by minotaur.apache.org with SMTP; 11 May 2007 00:46:39 -0000 Received: (qmail 75857 invoked by uid 500); 11 May 2007 00:46:41 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-httpd-dev-archive@httpd.apache.org Received: (qmail 75811 invoked by uid 500); 11 May 2007 00:46:41 -0000 Mailing-List: contact dev-help@httpd.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dev@httpd.apache.org list-help: list-unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Delivered-To: mailing list dev@httpd.apache.org Received: (qmail 75800 invoked by uid 99); 11 May 2007 00:46:41 -0000 Received: from herse.apache.org (HELO herse.apache.org) (140.211.11.133) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Thu, 10 May 2007 17:46:41 -0700 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=10.0 tests= X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: neutral (herse.apache.org: local policy) Received: from [194.242.35.95] (HELO dns-factory.at) (194.242.35.95) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Thu, 10 May 2007 17:46:34 -0700 Received: from WSLT03 apache@gknw.net [84.63.21.204] by dns-factory.at with NetMail SMTP Agent $Revision: 6025 $ on Novell NetWare; Fri, 11 May 2007 02:46:59 +0200 Date: Fri, 11 May 2007 02:45:57 +0200 From: Guenter Knauf To: dev@httpd.apache.org Subject: Re: Question about httpd / APR version relationship Message-ID: References: <20070501104720.0FA0010FB016@herse.apache.org> <7edfeeef0705100730n477a11b3ud9f392d229f57f70@mail.gmail.com> X-Mailer: AK-Mail 4.01 [German] (registered, single user license) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org Hi, > On 5/9/07, Guenter Knauf wrote: >> Apache 2.0.x -> has to use APR 0.9.x >> Apache 2.2.x -> has to use APR 1.2.x >> Apache 2.3.x -> has to use APR 1.3.x >> >> is this now a mandatory relationship, or is it valid to: >> >> build Apache 2.2.x with APR 1.3.x > This would likely work, but I wouldn't recommend it for official > builds. You wouldn't want module authors to start depending on new > functionality in APR 1.3.x when most versions of Apache 2.2.x don't > have that. >> build Apache 2.3.x with APR 1.2.x > That /might/ work, unless Apache is depending on new functionality in > APR 1.3.x, which it very well might be. One of those "YMMV, if it > breaks you get to keep both pieces" kind of situations. ok, that's exactly what I thought too - thanks for confirming.... So how about the future? Will this relationship continue? Means will we ship Apache 2.4.x with APR 1.4.x? and will APRUTIL also keep= in sync with APR version? If so that would make a check easier since then I only would have to check= if the minor release numbers of httpd, apr, and apr-util are all equal, a= nd bail out if one of apr / apr-util is less than the httpd one, and warn = if one of apr / apr-util is higher...(or even bail out there too). BTW. how (after which logic) does the configure process check for this? (s= orry, had no time yet to check this on a Linux box...) thanks, Guenter.