On Wed, Nov 30, 2005 at 07:10:37PM -0600, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
> * admins who install 1.1 for some specific reason are responsible to
> ensure they deal with the new package correctly (e.g., we give them
> a message upon configure "Found old APR 1.1.0, installing APR 1.2.2
> for you" and let them decide what to do. 99% of the time, they must
> follow our advise and install 1.2.2 in the same prefix/ as httpd.)
>
> * the vast majority of users, who only have apr 1.0/1.1 due to svn or
> other intrapackage dependencies, get a free apr 1.2 without having
> to think about it. Make this whole headache a noop for them.
>
> And I for one don't want the headaches of the users@ trouble reports. I'd
> really prefer to see those who help out on users@ answering this objection,
> as opposed to the hackers who are detached from the user community pushing
> this out +1 over those user-supporters objections.
User trouble reports can be easily mitigated by including the
instructions;
If you are installing on a system with apr/apr-util 1.0 or 1.1
installed, you must provide apr 1.2 manually. You can decide to
upgrade your existing apr/apr-util installation(s) to 1.2, or
may use the bundled versions like so;
cd srclib/apr ; ./configure
cd srclib/apr-util ; ./configure --with-apr=../apr
./configure --with-apr=srclib/apr --with-apr-util=srclib/apr-util
in the release notes.
There's no reason why this can't be fixed during 2.2, but with a months
old issue, and no sign of a patch, should it hold up a GA?
--
Colm MacCárthaigh Public Key: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
