Mailing-List: contact dev-help@httpd.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@httpd.apache.org
Received-SPF: neutral (athena.apache.org: local policy)
Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2013 10:55:33 -0600
From: "William A. Rowe Jr." <wrowe@rowe-clan.net>
To: dev@httpd.apache.org
Cc: rainer.jung@kippdata.de
Subject: Re: Building binaries and 3rd party dependencies
Message-ID: <20130215105533.6bae5401@hub>
In-Reply-To: <511E24BE.4010600@kippdata.de>
References: <20130205161211.42d6206f@hub>
	<511E24BE.4010600@kippdata.de>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

On Fri, 15 Feb 2013 13:06:22 +0100
Rainer Jung <rainer.jung@kippdata.de> wrote:

> On 05.02.2013 23:12, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
> 

> Don't know how windows handles the use of two versions of a DLL in
> the same process.

They must have different file names (not paths); e.g. a versioned dll
filename libpcre-7.dll would be distinct from libpcre-8.dll, but most
thirdparty vendors don't version and even use entirely unreleated names
for dynamic libs on Windows than they had chosen for Unicies.  (For ex
openssl's LIBEAY32.dll vs libcrypto.so).

> For 2.4 I think starting with latest pcre is fine, later major updates
> may depend on compatibility again.

I agree that breaking binary compatibility changes shouldn't be rolled
in once people are using a given major.minor build from the ASF.

> expat: currently still bundled directly or inside deps as apr-util
> builtin. No strong opinion here whether to use that one or the
> latest. I personally would stick to expat for 2.4 and not switch to
> libxml2.

For 2.4?  I can experiment with both solutions.

I guess the other question is whether 2.2.24 should be tagged with the
original apr-util 1.3 family, or whether we should pick up 1.5.1?  And
back to the older 2.2.23 sources, should it be the then-current apr-util
that was bundled in the .tar.gz distribution?