On 15.02.2013 18:21, Rainer Jung wrote: > On 15.02.2013 17:55, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote: >> I guess the other question is whether 2.2.24 should be tagged with the >> original apr-util 1.3 family, or whether we should pick up 1.5.1? And >> back to the older 2.2.23 sources, should it be the then-current apr-util >> that was bundled in the .tar.gz distribution? > > APR and APU are not part of the svn tag, are they? > > It looks like 2.2.23 was rolled with APR 1.4.6 and APU 1.4.1 in the > tarballs, the current versions at that time. I'd say there's no reason > not to proceed like that, ie. using 1.4.6/1.5.1 for 2.2.24 source > tarballs and binaries.
I guess with the 2.2.23 question you meant what to include in a 2.2.23 build done right now? Since we plan to have 2.2.24 soon (and I guess you are going to provide Windows binaries for 23 and 24), I'd say 2.2.23 is mostly interesting in case someone experiences an unexpected compatibility problem. In this case it would be saner to build 2.2.23 binaries using the original APR/APU versions 1.4.6/1.4.1. Anyone looking for the latest and greatest would switch to 2.2.24 including 1.4.6/1.5.1. Regards, Rainer
