On Wed, 2004-01-28 at 13:00, Kean Johnston wrote: > > That looks great: I'll commit your patch to the 0.9 branch unless there > > are any objections. Thanks a lot for working on this issue. > My personal opinion is that its approaching the issue the wrong way. I > think first and foremost, we need to establish why ABI compatibility > with a 0.9 release is so important.
Even if APR adds large-file support in 1.0 by bashing the apr_off_t type to off64_t where available, it still makes sense to solve this problem on the 0.9 branch, since httpd 2,x is stuck there and Subversion 1.x would wind up stuck there. > On a typical system that we are likely to care about today ... how many > things are actually using APR that cant be (and arent being) easily > updated? The two largest consumers of APR are Apache and SubVersion > right? SVN is chnaging daily, and Apache frequently enough that it is > unlikely to cause too much pain. SVN is in a final four-week soak period before its 1.0 release. A change to the apr_off_t type would cause an incompatible change in SVN's ABI, which we cannot tolerate before our 2.0 release, which might be five years off. (It turns out that eliminating apr_off_t from the svn API is too hard, because of the apr_finfo_t type and because of scheduling.)
