httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jim Jagielski <>
Subject Re: documenting -deps
Date Tue, 31 Jan 2012 19:40:57 GMT

On Jan 31, 2012, at 12:50 PM, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:

> 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 ...
> No.  It is a dependency.  It is not convenient, unless the HTTP Server
> RM's are all committed to repackaging all of the -deps every time the
> APR project introduces a security fix or significant bug fix.
> Providing the wrong packages for any given point in time is not
> a convenience, it is a disservice.

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.

View raw message