On 7/1/2009 3:52 AM, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
On Jun 30 09:02, David Rothenberger wrote:
On 6/30/2009 1:30 AM, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
Here, the aprutil1 package still exists in the 1.7 release area, but
I don't think it makes sense anymore, along the same lines as for
libapr1. I think it should be ok to remove it from the 1.7 release.
What do you say?
The aprutil1 and apr1 packages are just transition packages to help
people upgrade from the old package naming schema to the new one. They
don't need to be in the 1.7 area if we believe everyone will have
updated their apr1 and aprutil1 packages before they try to upgrade to
1.7. I'm not sure that's true, though. It seems there are at least some
people that only update once every 3-5 years. :-)
So you'd rather have the apr1 package in the 1.7 release as well?
I don't know the right answer. I thought I saw that the obsolete
packages from from 1.5 were not copied to 1.7. If that's the case, 1.5
users must update before trying to upgrade to 1.7, right? If so, I don't
need the apr1 and aprutil1 packages in 1.7.
If we don't require users to update 1.5 before upgrading to 1.7, then
I'd like apr1 and aprutil1 in 1.7.
I update frequently. Many users at my company update only when they have
to -- perhaps once every two years.
--
David Rothenberger ---- [email protected]
Stupid, n.:
Losing $25 on the game and $25 on the instant replay.
