Rainer Jung wrote:
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.
Either autoconf 2.61 or autoconf 2.63 given the endian-ness issues.
Although I count on fedora 8 and 9 for most of my needs, I don't use
it for my build toolchain. Peeking in on the status of 2.63 now.
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?
Well, that issue is that we have two different RM's. We could obviously
change the release.sh script to insist on one specific version, but we
again have to keep apr and httpd release.sh scripts in sync with each
other.
Let's hope that in httpd-2.4, "bundled apr" can be done away with? At
least by httpd-3.0.
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.
We do :)
