At 09:26 AM 2/23/2005, Justin Erenkrantz wrote: >--On Wednesday, February 23, 2005 10:09 AM +0100 Mladen Turk <[EMAIL >PROTECTED]> wrote: > >>Well, the tarballs are unbuildable on WIN32. >>The problem is with apr and apr-util provided with the tarball, >>and broken build/win32ver.awk that creates invalid .rc files. >> >>If I use apr and apr-utils from HEAD, it builds fine. > >That's an issue that should cause the APR folks to release 1.1.1. -- justin
-1 veto - there is no reason for us -not- to adopt apr 1.2.0. I'm confused why we would be so pedantic as to not adopt a current release? APR signatures were broken on all 1.0/1.1 release for Win32, and yet, I see no reason why we shouldn't just jump up to the version we want, and call it out as a prerequisite. From a version control perspective, this would not be a subversion bump, it's a minor bump because we are now actively maintaining a contract (broken for a long time, it seems.) From the mod_dav exports issue alone, I'm -1 calling this build a beta. It clearly isn't and needs to be fixed. As to Nick's comment, I certainly agree with your position, there is not enough adoption of APR to -not- roll in the apr/apr-util for a general distribution, so beta's should have those packages as well. Bill
