httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Noel Butler <noel.but...@ausics.net>
Subject Re: documenting -deps
Date Wed, 01 Feb 2012 00:01:46 GMT
On Tue, 2012-01-31 at 14:40 -0500, Jim Jagielski wrote:


> The release is a snapshot of time. All we are saying if
> we bundle apr/apu (in whatever fashion) is that at the
> time we are releasing httpd, here are the additional
> ASF packages (apr/apu) that we're providing to you, the
> end user, for your convenience. We are free to call that
> package whatever the heck we want.
> 
> There's really no reason to make this more difficult than
> it is... I am sure that when we make windows builds, it is
> quite possible that we are "bundling" things in there which,
> by your argument, implies forcing the windows builder here
> to rebuild it to capture updates.
> 
> I for one don't care whether we do or not, but I think that
> it's a topic for discussion; other may think it's a nice thing
> to do. And if the concern against it is something that is easily
> fixed, then that is also a good thing to know.
> 


Given in the *nix version, the -deps package only contains apr/apr-util,
I think it would be a better idea to 
call it httpd...-aprutils  as you earlier suggested, and maybe for the
2.4.1 release.

Else someone who builds using OS distro pre-installed version of APR and
not "included", may think they need this file as well when its clear
they don't.

As for complete removal, I think it's a bad idea, but... might I suggest
that if majority decides to remove it entirely, that -   
          1/  Warnings indicating so be put in the relevant
README/INSTALL files, and
          2/  It be kept for the life of 2.4, and removed in 2.(5|6)
          3/  The -deps/aprutils file gets it own brief README file
warning that it will be removed as of next major release, and those
wanting to use current "best" APR/APRU, will need to get it from
<insert-apr-URL>

This way, no one can say they were not warned, you may be surprised at
the number of admins that do build with included APR and not the OS
distro's (usually very antiquated) installed version.

 I for one, know of only two that use OS vendors supplied package, but
many more that use included from source packages, yes, there really is a
lot of people out there that do not use vendor specific installs for
either httpd or apr, because as we all know, in particular for the
former, they are not, and can never be, built for every possible
scenario.

my 2c worth.


Mime
View raw message