At 03:32 PM 8/1/2002, Ryan Bloom wrote:
> From: William A. Rowe, Jr. [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> At 11:42 AM 8/1/2002, you wrote:
> >ianh 2002/08/01 09:42:33
> >
> > Modified: build httpd_roll_release
> > Log:
> > we need apr-iconv now
>
> Even if we don't build it, this is extremely good practice that the folks
> rolling and releasing the tarball TAG the apr-iconv tree in sync with
> the current apr and apr-util trees..
I completely disagree. The problem is that the httpd_roll_release script is for rolling httpd releases, not APR releases. This change doesn't help people realize that they have to tag APR-iconv before they can release httpd.
Amazing that we tag APR at all, no?
I really agree with Cliff, the change to pull apr-iconv out of APR is annoying, and it is going to cause problems. I understand that it is the "best" solution we have right now, it is still a bad solution.
Of course it is bad. That's why I suggest a separate tarball for iconv.
But it doesn't matter, we need trees in-sync, so apr-iconv must be tagged with apr's tags, from here forwards. If you want to do that as an rtag, that would be fine too.
ok.. so.. i'm not sure if this has been resolved.
should we include the apr-iconv is the source distribution tarball,
or only have it in the win32 zipfile. my personal opinion is that is should be in both, as some win32 users will just download the tarball and this would be confusing.
Bill
