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 Sat, 16 Feb 2013 01:31:22 GMT
On Fri, 15 Feb 2013 19:39:17 +0100
Ruediger Pluem <rpluem@apache.org> wrote:
> > 
> > I guess with the 2.2.23 question you meant what to include in a
> > 2.2.23 build done right now? Since we plan to have 2.2.24 soon (and
> > I guess you are going to provide Windows binaries for 23 and 24),
> > I'd say 2.2.23 is mostly interesting in case someone experiences an
> > unexpected compatibility problem. In this case it would be saner to
> > build 2.2.23 binaries using the original APR/APU versions
> > 1.4.6/1.4.1. Anyone looking for the latest and greatest would
> > switch to 2.2.24 including 1.4.6/1.5.1.

I concur, thanks for the response.

> IMHO the previous procedure was to keep major.minor stable for APR /
> APR-UTIL in the supplied tar ball and only increase to the latest
> patch level of that major.minor. Only exception was if httpd needed
> new features from APR / APR-UTIL major.minor (keeping major stable at
> all times of course and only increase minor) which was also an
> indication to the users that they need to use a new major.minor
> version. Or do we decouple the APR / APR-UTIL version we put in the
> tar ball from the minimum version detection for APR / APR-UTIL in the
> httpd autoconf part?

The major.prev version stops getting significant bug fixes, so although
the version major must stay put, minor bumps are forward compatible.

I can easily picture a user wanting to add a thirdparty module which
depends on the major.current release of APR or APU, even if the core
httpd code and bundled modules do not need it.

Bill


Mime
View raw message