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: FYI brotli
Date Thu, 16 Feb 2017 22:06:21 GMT
On Mon, Jan 16, 2017 at 2:28 PM, Evgeny Kotkov
<evgeny.kotkov@visualsvn.com> wrote:
>
> There is, however, a potential problem with backporting mod_brotli, since
> it relies on the Brotli library 1.0.0, which has not yet been released.
> In other words, if the upstream changes the API or the library layout
> or their pkg-config files after mod_brotli is shipped with httpd 2.4.x, it's
> either going to stop building or working.

... or stop being updated, if the 0.5.x branch is abandoned and the new
library versioned for binary compatibility.

That said, isn't it more effective for brotli to reversion the lib*.so.n.n.n
files to facilitate users of the already compiled ngnix module? The entire
point of versioning is to allow multiple consumers to use one of several
binary builds.

> My impression on this is that mod_brotli is only safe to backport after the
> Brotli authors publish the 1.0.0 version of their library.  But perhaps I am
> missing something?
>
> (Apart from this, I think that Brotli did change the layout of their pkg-config
> files in [https://github.com/google/brotli/commit/fe9f9a91], and it requires
> an update in the filters/config.m4 file; I'll do that.)

They may change the package composition again, IIUC, renaming /usr/bin/bro
to /usr/bin/brotli or similar, due to an established /usr/bin/bro in many linux
distributors' packages. But a build from 1.0.0 trunk today indicates this hasn't
happened yet.

Thanks again for your earlier clarifications.

Mime
View raw message