On 1/18/2012 6:22 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote: > > On Jan 17, 2012, at 3:42 PM, Graham Leggett wrote: > >> On 17 Jan 2012, at 10:32 PM, Gregg L. Smith wrote: >> >>> Why not just do it how it has always been done, that is to include the >>> latest release of APR/APU(/APR-I on Win) for the httpd release? It seems to >>> me if I recall this correctly, that the reason there was a separate -deps >>> package was because APR 1.4 was not released, therefore could not be >>> bundled yet was required for 2.3.x at the time of release. >>> >>> I know PCRE was axed and the reason is sound. APR however, is part of ASF >>> and maintained by most of you anyway. >>> >>> The preferred needed APR & APU are all in a released state, what's the >>> problem bundling again? >> >> Both APR and APR-Util are standalone packages, and are deployed in their own >> right on systems, just like other dependencies like OpenSSL or db4, and this >> has been so for many years. >> >> Bundling them causes confusion and clashes with these system installed >> packages. Those that need included APR/APR-Util should be the exception, not >> the rule. >> > > For the beta, it was deemed Good to bundle the required versions of > apr/apu; for the GAs, not so much. > > I'm +1 for not bundling them.
Was this thread abandoned? I'm also +1 for not bundling them. But with -deps, or without, are the docs@ up to date with respect to 2.4's prerequisites on unix? I know the Windows docs to be out of date and will edit those build docs by the end of the week.
