Bojan Smojver schrieb: > On Thu, 2008-08-07 at 17:55 -0500, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote: > >> Thanks Peter, it begs the question from my last note, should we refuse >> any 2.62 for packaging via our scripts, or just let it slide? >> >> My gutcheck says simply refuse 2.62. > > I would generate our configure with 2.61 (for which we know is good) and > let others choose their own. In many cases, distributions are shipping > their own patches to 2.62 that are addressing the problem, so no need to > ban 2.62 outright.
What will be used, once httpd 2.2.10 with bundled apr/apr-util gets prepared? Last time (2.2.9), httpd configure plus those inside srclib/apr(-util) got generated with autoconf 2.62. I noticed, that more generally, httpd-bundled apr(-util) do not necessarily use the same autoconf and libtool versions as the standalone ones, even when they are released shortly after each other. Would it make sense to keep changes small in general to avoid surprises when switching from bundled apr(-util) to standalone, even when using the same version? Of course the release managers environment is not automatically the same. The other possibility would be to really include the released apr(-util) inside httpd without regenerating configure and libtool. Don't know, if I should send this to httpd-dev, but I assume most relevant people read both lists. Regards, Rainer
