httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Ruediger Pluem <rpl...@apache.org>
Subject Re: [PRERELEASE TARBALLS] httpd-2.3.8
Date Wed, 25 Aug 2010 05:50:11 GMT


On 08/25/2010 12:29 AM, Paul Querna wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 24, 2010 at 3:04 PM, Guenter Knauf <fuankg@apache.org> wrote:
>> Hi all,
>> Am 24.08.2010 18:42, schrieb Jim Jagielski:
>>> The pre-release test tarballs for httpd-2.3.8 (alpha) are
>>> available for download, test and fun:
>>>
>>>        http://httpd.apache.org/dev/dist/
>>>
>>> Will call for a release vote in a coupla days...
>> I know that this topic was already up here, but nevertheless I think we
>> should re-think about including PCRE again.
>> Other than openssl or zlib PCRE is a mandatory dependency like APR/APU, and
>> I see no benefit in dropping it from our dependencies deliveries other than
>> making tarballs smaller, and that is nowadays certainly not an issue
>> anymore.
>> We want Apache to build form source on at many platforms as possible - sure
>> the main target is Linux / Unix, but we have a couple of other platforms
>> where PCRE is not installed by default, that are at least Win32, NetWare,
>> most likely OS/2, and probably a couple of others too.
>> I tried to build 2.3.7 already for NetWare and Win32, and while NetWare went
>> fine only because I have an (self) adapted makefile (from previous times
>> when we shipped PCRE), the Win32 stuff is horrible: there comes some
>> suggestion up that I should build PCRE with CMake with xxx option; 1st I
>> have to download CMake and depend on another build tool (ok, not that big
>> issue), but whats even more worse is that the CMake build failed for me, and
>> thats really bad - you cant just go and build httpd as you do on Linux, no!
>> Your build process is always interupted, and probably as in my case finally
>> broken at all.
>> Hey, friends, we do much better with 2.2.x where we ship PCRE: we have our
>> own makefile, and the build goes through in one go without need for other
>> tools like CMake - just the compiler and probably a platform PDK are enough
>> (and thats how it shoud be).
>> Therefore I want to start a vote here again where we vote for including PCRE
>> again with the dependencies - just as we (now) do with APR/APU;
>> and everyone who votes against should give some good reasons what speaks
>> against -- the fact that every Linux comes with PCRE is certainly no good
>> reason - it only leads finally to the fact that we might end up with 50
>> builds of httpd 2.after-2.x with different PCE versions which makes then
>> nice bug hunting, and we cant even tell someone who faces a prob to 'use our
>> shipping PCRE which is known to be good'.
>>
>> Here we go:
>>
>> [ ] YES - include recent PCRE again with dependencies (means we
>>    create a PCRE repo in svn, check in a recent version, and add
>>    platform-dependent makefiles which are fully integrated into
>>    main build process).
>>
>> [ ] NO - dont include PCRE (as currently) because of reason: ...
>>
>  [X] NO:
> 
> There are 3-5 PCRE releases per year[1], and as a project our history
> of staying up to date (including security and just bug fixes) was
> generally pretty bad.  Bundling our own PCRE is a security risk best
> managed by operating system vendors who take care of backporting
> patches to 4 year old versions, as an upstream I see very little value
> in maintaining PCRE in tree, and plenty of risks.
> 
> It seems to enable porting on other platforms, we could make a shell
> script that downloaded PCRE and any other dependencies like it
> (OpenSSL?), but I don't believe this has a place in the main
> distribution tarball.

Very valid reasons and I am as a 'Unix' guy not hurt that much by the stopped
bundling of PCRE. OTOH there seems to be a real problem on Netware and
Windows and we might should spend some time in providing better build
instructions / scripts how to get PCRE build easily on Windows / Netware.

Regards

RĂ¼diger


Mime
View raw message