----- Original Message -----
From: "Ryan Bloom" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Cliff Woolley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, September 18, 2001 6:43 PM
Subject: Re: Q1: Rollup Release Format
> On Tuesday 18 September 2001 04:35 pm, Cliff Woolley wrote:
> > On Tue, 18 Sep 2001, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
> > > > o Option A: apache-2.x.x.tar.gz
> > > >
> > > > Combines httpd-2.0, apr, apr-util, httpd-proxy and
> > > > httpd-ldap and produces an apache rollup tree.
> > >
> > > +1 on Option A. I think that anything else is going to be too
> > > confusing for end users.
+1 on Option A.
> > I also prefer option A. My only question is do we really want to start
> > making a distinction between "apache" and "httpd"? I don't think we do.
> > How about apache-bundle-2.x.x.tar.gz ?
>
> Regardless of how we do the roll-up, nont of our builds should have the
> word Apache in them. The httpd project is the httpd project. If we use the
> word Apache, then we are co-opting the Foundation's name, instead of
> the project name.
_IF_ we adopted option B, it should be httpd-bundle-x.x.x, but it appears the
people lean for option A. In that case, it should be httpd-core-x.x.x and
httpd-extra-x.x.x (httpd-modules sounds like we don't include a -single-
module with httpd-core. httpd-complete or the like sounds like they get the
whole package, or back to option B.)
In any case, I'm against B for a simple reason. Many folks will grab the core
sources tarball, turn around, and grab the 'full' tarball. What a waste of
our servers' bandwidth.
Bill
