At 07:01 PM 8/2/2002, Ian Holsman wrote:
William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
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
> >
> > 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.
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.
Win32 users that grab the tarball do so at their own peril anyways
[you cannot plug in lf-lineended files into microsoft's vc tools or ide.]
This should be a separate tarball for those interested in it for any
non-Unix platform anyways.
I promised my weekend to straighten out iconv/openssl/zlib/ldap
dependencies on win32. It will be a hack, but we won't require iconv.
And we still need to tag the puppy every time around, until [as rbb
points out] we use specific version tags of APR rather than an HTTPD
tag.
Bill
