httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "William A. Rowe Jr." <>
Subject Re: documenting -deps
Date Tue, 31 Jan 2012 17:49:26 GMT
On 1/31/2012 11:30 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
> Just to be clear, the current thinking is that we do not bundle
> apr/apu at all with 2.4.x... either as a sep tarball (the -deps),
> nor simply slapped in there (ala 2.2.x)...
> I wonder if the issue is that we call that tarball httpd...-deps. I
> wonder if people would think differently if we named it httpd...-aprlibs
> or something like that, which makes it clear that we're providing apr/apu
> simply as a Nice Thing for our end users, but not as a *dependency*,
> which carries a different connotation ...

Don't they get the same thing by looking in ../apr/ from the very same
distribution mirrors?  Seems like storage waste to me.

Don't the independently need to obtain pcre to even get httpd to build?
How is pcre different than apr?  Have we documented that prerequisite?

And to build apr+util, they probably want to have obtained and installed
expat, openssl, and if part of their clib, iconv.

Best yet, they probably won't be

So unless every RM "-convenience" package

View raw message