On Wed, Feb 23, 2005 at 10:22:12PM +0000, Nick Kew wrote: > William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote: > > > As to Nick's comment, I certainly agree with your position, there > > is not enough adoption of APR to -not- roll in the apr/apr-util > > Isn't that chicken-and-egg? APR is seen as part of Apache(httpd) > by everyone outside a small core, most of whom probably subscribe > to this list. > > Site Valet distributed (a subset of) APR. If I had reason to expect > people to have APR installed in a standard place, I'd love to stop > doing that. I'm sure that's far from being the only application: > it just happens to be the one I'm responsible for. > > If we're serious about APR having a life of its own, let's put our > money where our mouth is and unbundle them. As soon as that happens, > APR will get packaged in all the distros. It works for me: > httpd-2.1 builds and runs with APR-1.x. If it fails on some > platforms, that's simply a bug that needs fixing before release.
Hey! All you folks out there who were having build issues - don't worry, help is at hand. With *this* release you just have to get *three* tarballs configured and built correctly together instead of one! It's *so* much better for you, can't you tell? </sarcasm> But back in the real world: +1 on only shipping released versions of APR and apr-util in tarballs, definitely the right thing to do. joe
