On 13 Jul 2011, at 16:54, Ruediger Pluem wrote: > > > On 07/07/2011 08:44 PM, Nick Kew wrote: >> On 7 Jul 2011, at 17:55, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote: >> > >> >>> [ ] Revert to using apr_ldap (restricting mod_ldap to apr-util 1.x [2]) >>> (binding both apr and mod_ldap to ldap libs) >> >> -1. OK for a hack, but not for a 2.4 release. Eat our own dogfood. >> > > Can we really request the usage of APR 2.0 during the lifetime of 2.4 and > drop the possibility > to use APR / APR-UTIL 1.x? > APR 2.0 might contain changed API's such that existing 2.4 code and external > modules > code build for 2.4 does not run any longer. Wouldn't that violate our binary > compatibility > rules for the lifetime of a stable httpd version?
I think we (including that vote) may have been at cross-purposes here. Subsequent discussion in various places leaves us with some plausible variants on that theme. I'd like to see 2.4 giving users the choice of APR version: 1.x or 2.0. I was voting against a (proposed) deliberate policy choice that would preclude using 2.0. I was not suggesting that we *require* 2.0 anytime in the foreseeable future! Having said that, it's been a while since I looked at the state of the build against different APR versions. Not been there since before LDAP blew up. -- Nick Kew Available for work, contract or permanent http://www.webthing.com/~nick/cv.html
