On 1/31/2012 11:30 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote: > Just to be clear, the current thinking is that we do not bundle > apr/apu at all with 2.4.x... either as a sep tarball (the -deps), > nor simply slapped in there (ala 2.2.x)... > > I wonder if the issue is that we call that tarball httpd...-deps. I > wonder if people would think differently if we named it httpd...-aprlibs > or something like that, which makes it clear that we're providing apr/apu > simply as a Nice Thing for our end users, but not as a *dependency*, > which carries a different connotation ...
No. It is a dependency. It is not convenient, unless the HTTP Server RM's are all committed to repackaging all of the -deps every time the APR project introduces a security fix or significant bug fix. Providing the wrong packages for any given point in time is not a convenience, it is a disservice.
