tomcat-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Henri Gomez <hgo...@apache.org>
Subject Re: jtc rpms
Date Tue, 20 Aug 2002 08:56:38 GMT
Quoting Bojan Smojver <bojan@rexursive.com>:

> On Tue, 2002-08-20 at 00:50, Henri Gomez wrote:
> 
> Welcome back from holidays,

Thanks

> hope you had a good time...

Rainy ;[

> 
> > I propose to create a snapshot subdir in jtc, snapshot, and provide here
> the
> > necessary binaries, for example Linux rpms & .so, windows, netware, iis
> are
> > welcome also.
> > 
> > http://jakarta.apache.org/builds/jakarta-tomcat-connectors/snapshot/rpms/
> > 
> > We could have right now :
> > 
> >
> http://jakarta.apache.org/builds/jakarta-tomcat-connectors/snapshot/v4.1.9-beta/
>  
> > rpms/
> > 
> > What do you think about that ?
> 
> I think this is generally a good idea but I just wanted to clear another
> possible source of confusion. Is there some sort of dependency between
> modules and Apache 2.0.x versions? 

Yes, with latest Apache 2.0, modules should be compiled against the proper
Apache 2.0, so if you have a mod_jk built against 2.0.39, you need to recompile
it to make use of jk under Apache 2.0.40 ;(

It will be a pain for many distributions and modules maintainers (binary), so I
hope HTTP 2.0 team will relax it a little or consider version update and
functionnalities updates.

> I ran into this with mod_jk 1.2.0
> from CVS (i.e. had to rebuild the module when the version of Apache was
> bumped from 2.0.39 to 2.0.40). I almost always do static linking, but I
> was wandering if that applies to DSO's as well (my experience with
> building PHP 4.2.2 tells me it does). If so, I think we should also
> clearly mark what Apache version that particular module is for.

Yes, ie mod_jk-1.2.0-apache-2.0.40.so

> Also, do we need to tie JTC to a particular Tomcat version, like in your
> example to 4.1.9? 

It didn't tie to tomcat version but rather to jtc snapshot ;)

> My understanding is that the web server (Apache) part
> doesn't care much about what's behind it, as long as it speaks the
> correct protocol version. Maybe there should be a README file instead,
> listing all known Tomcat version combos for a particular JTC version...

I agree, and we refer to the jtc tag name instead of a particular tomcat version.
You could use mod_jk 1.2.0 tagged at tc 4.1.9 time with tc 3.3.1

regards

--
To unsubscribe, e-mail:   <mailto:tomcat-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:tomcat-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org>


Mime
View raw message