Hi
Oh I see - I had not realised this. In that case, I agree that sticking
with 0.9.x is the only sensible option at this point in time :)
Mike
On 02/07/2013 14:35, Jeff Trawick wrote:
On Tue, Jul 2, 2013 at 8:53 AM, MikeM
<michaelm12-asfbugzi...@aquaorange.net
<mailto:michaelm12-asfbugzi...@aquaorange.net>> wrote:
Hi,
Maybe the simple option is to do the final release with the
old/existing bundled APR, but put a foot note in the release notes
that the newer APR v1.4.8/1.5.2 has been confirmed to successfully
work with 2.0.65. This way it may give confidence to anyone who is
stuck on 2.0.x for some reason to use the newer APR/APR-util if
needs be.
APR/APR-util 1.x won't work with httpd 2.0.x. Someone continuing to
use 2.0.x will need to hand-pick or backport fixes from apr/apr-util
0.9.x or later levels. But then they'll have to backport fixes from
httpd too. The line was drawn at slightly different places for httpd
vs. apr/apr-util, but the long term picture is the same: There is
effort to remain on httpd 2.0.x if you want to pick up any code fixes,
and the recommendation is clear.
Regards,
Mike
On 02/07/2013 13:06, Guenter Knauf wrote:
Hi Bill,
On 02.07.2013 01:47, wr...@rowe-clan.net
<mailto:wr...@rowe-clan.net> wrote:
I am not at all concerned
whether APR 0.9 is
released again or not since folks had years to take that
up in our
discussions of
putting httpd 2.0 to bed, yet nobody so much as suggested
a release,
nevermind some
volunteer to act on it.
true; but I thought that most of us probably forgot about that
we bundle APR/APU with 2.0.x - like I did; the lack of APR/APU
fixes came only to my attention when I was on building the
2.0.65 binaries ...
but since nobody else expressed an oppinion about then thats
fine, and I shut up.
or if you have concurred with the group consensus to let
this story end
as of Jun 2013.
I have. Just did put the NetWare bins up; go ahead and release.
Gün.
--
Born in Roswell... married an alien...
http://emptyhammock.com/
