httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Nick Kew <>
Subject Re: [vote] mod_ldap
Date Wed, 13 Jul 2011 20:28:16 GMT

On 13 Jul 2011, at 16:54, Ruediger Pluem wrote:

> On 07/07/2011 08:44 PM, Nick Kew wrote:
>> On 7 Jul 2011, at 17:55, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
>>> [ ]  Revert to using apr_ldap (restricting mod_ldap to apr-util 1.x [2])
>>>     (binding both apr and mod_ldap to ldap libs)
>> -1.  OK for a hack, but not for a 2.4 release.  Eat our own dogfood.
> Can we really request the usage of APR 2.0 during the lifetime of 2.4 and drop the possibility
> to use APR / APR-UTIL 1.x?
> APR 2.0 might contain changed API's such that existing 2.4 code and external modules
> code build for 2.4 does not run any longer. Wouldn't that violate our binary compatibility
> rules for the lifetime of a stable httpd version?

I think we (including that vote) may have been at cross-purposes here.
Subsequent discussion in various places leaves us with some plausible
variants on that theme.

I'd like to see 2.4 giving users the choice of APR version: 1.x or 2.0.
I was voting against a (proposed) deliberate policy choice that would
preclude using 2.0.  I was not suggesting that we *require* 2.0
anytime in the foreseeable future!

Having said that, it's been a while since I looked at the state of the build
against different APR versions.  Not been there since before LDAP blew up.

Nick Kew

Available for work, contract or permanent

View raw message