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: Building binaries and 3rd party dependencies
Date Fri, 15 Feb 2013 08:41:47 GMT
On Tue, 5 Feb 2013 23:47:03 -0600
"William A. Rowe Jr." <wrowe@rowe-clan.net> wrote:
> 
> > On 2/5/2013 2:12 PM, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
> > > In catching up with building 2.2.23 and getting somewhere with
> > > 2.4.3 (soon to be .24 and .4 from today's email notes), I'm left
> > > with one quandary.
[...]
> > > But for the expat and pcre dependencies, the versions we shipped
> > > in 2.2.23 and 2.4.3-deps sources are falling out of date.  And I
> > > doubt a bundle of 2.4.4-deps is going to be updated either.
> 
> > > For a binary package here at the ASF, when it comes to a third
> > > party dependency, I would suggest we ignore the out of date
> > > bundled source, and always package what the other OSS project has
> > > most recently released, as long as the release remained binary
> > > forward compatible to our prior packages.
> > >
> > > This impacts Windows and Netware along with any other binaries
> > > people wanted to build (aix, solaris or whatever).  In most of
> > > those cases I'd expect the 'httpd' package would be devoid of the
> > > dependencies and just rely on the most commonly accepted library
> > > bundle.  I think it is that way in most of the deb/rpm/apt
> > > packaging repositories.
> 
> I hope our consensus is that the httpd project is wrong and that the
> upstream is right.  Some of us hoped this would all go away, but some
> 2.4 RM's are quite insistent in producing already-stale -deps
> packages. And although the project voted to throw away distribution
> of any of the dep libraries, this all persists.  Leaves the few of us
> willing to help is a really obnoxious situation.

I am really looking for input from others, especially those who hope to
add other binary distributions again at httpd.  Not one tree I had to
remove was a permanent decision - they were simply too far out of date.
Any committer can add their platform under /dist/httpd/binaries/{arch}

If we plan to ship /dist/httpd/binaries/, the question I posed above
does demand a modern consensus.  Outside of the ASF, I never look at
any ASF distribution of a non-ASF component, but go straight back to
primary sources.  I'm asking, vis a vie 2.2, 2.4 and onwards, if this
is the group's desired approach for binaries/?  I really can't roll
one binary or help with autobuilds until this decision is made.


Mime
View raw message