httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "William A. Rowe Jr." <wr...@rowe-clan.net>
Subject Re: documenting -deps
Date Tue, 31 Jan 2012 17:04:07 GMT
On 1/18/2012 6:22 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
> 
> On Jan 17, 2012, at 3:42 PM, Graham Leggett wrote:
> 
>> On 17 Jan 2012, at 10:32 PM, Gregg L. Smith wrote:
>>
>>> Why not just do it how it has always been done, that is to include the latest
release of APR/APU(/APR-I on Win) for the httpd release? It seems to me if I recall this correctly,
that the reason there was a separate -deps package was because APR 1.4 was not released, therefore
could not be bundled yet was required for 2.3.x at the time of release.
>>>
>>> I know PCRE was axed and the reason is sound. APR however, is part of ASF and
maintained by most of you anyway.
>>>
>>> The preferred needed APR & APU are all in a released state, what's the problem
bundling again?
>>
>> Both APR and APR-Util are standalone packages, and are deployed in their own right
on systems, just like other dependencies like OpenSSL or db4, and this has been so for many
years.
>>
>> Bundling them causes confusion and clashes with these system installed packages.
Those that need included APR/APR-Util should be the exception, not the rule.
>>
> 
> For the beta, it was deemed Good to bundle the required versions of
> apr/apu; for the GAs, not so much.
> 
> I'm +1 for not bundling them.

Was this thread abandoned?

I'm also +1 for not bundling them.

But with -deps, or without, are the docs@ up to date with respect to 2.4's
prerequisites on unix?  I know the Windows docs to be out of date and will
edit those build docs by the end of the week.

Mime
View raw message