On Tue, 2001-09-18 at 18:50, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
> I'm sorry - I've transformed the entire schema.
>
> Yes, I'm +1 for the 'real' option A.
+1 for 'real' option A. as well
(here's a conundrum.. I have commit to proxy not httpd itself.. so does
this vote count?)
the reason I like it is twofold.
1. the 'full' release may lag a bit behind the 'lean/core' release, so
this will reduce confusion on mismatching versions.
2. It provides a nice simple way of downloading everything, and later
may even combine documentation/manuals into one spot.
I still think we should merge the httpd-'module' projects into one, but
that fight can wait
>
> My concerns about it remain - folks will download the 'lite' core version, only
> to turn around and download the 'full' version.
>
> And yes, something like httpd-complete would be a very nice name.
>
> Bill
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "William A. Rowe, Jr." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Cliff Woolley"
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Tuesday, September 18, 2001 8:28 PM
> Subject: Re: Q1: Rollup Release Format
>
>
> >
> > ----- 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
> >
> >
> >
> >
--
Ian Holsman
Performance Measurement & Analysis
CNET Networks - 415 364-8608
