Joe Orton wrote:
It's pretty silly for anybody to suddenly wake up and declare some random bug as a showstopper for 2.2. Nobody has cared enough about the problem to fix it in the six months and four(?) 2.1.x alpha/beta releases that mod_dbd has been in the tree. So it clearly isn't really very critical to anybody, and isn't showstopper material.
Exactly. I've stopped testing httpd-2.1.x because there was nobody interested in testing apr-iconv 1.1.1, a prereq to httpd-2.1/2.2. Without any community interest, httpd on Win32 is clearly my toy, not a project port. I have no intention of rolling any 2.2, voting on any 2.2, until httpd will either correctly build on unix against apr 1.2, or emit a sensible failure. REGARDLESS of whether apr 1.0/1.1 is installed in the system path. I'm voting -1 until the issue of packaging apr/apr-util/apr-iconv in the httpd tarball is resolved. The last I heard, there were folks voting AGAINST this, yet I saw these trees in httpd-2.1.10 tarball. Why? And the suggestion to have an httpd-2.x.x-bundle.tar.gz was raised, that we include apr/apr-util/kitchen sink. That never saw a resolution, with several of those against apr being rolled into httpd, also being against this proposal. No legitimate counterproposals were offered. There's no way that this list has agreement/concluded vote on if srclib/ should include apr/apr-util/expat, and when it's present ./configure is doing the wrong things. So we perpetuate (nay - it's made worse) the 2.0 just to push this out the door. Roy's point of how f'ed up many fink distributions are is rather funny, it's the reason my Mac isn't building httpd-2.2 from svn, and the reason I'm building new toolchains on Win32. The last thing I want is for httpd to be as much of a mess as most of the packages out there, today :-) Bill
