On Thu, May 27, 2021 at 8:42 PM William A Rowe Jr <wr...@rowe-clan.net> wrote:
> On Thu, May 27, 2021, 07:52 Eric Covener <cove...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> On Thu, May 27, 2021 at 8:45 AM Rainer Jung <rainer.j...@kippdata.de> >> wrote: >> >> > is my understanding correct, that even httpd trunk (and then also 2.4.x) >> > needs LDAP support in APR/APU to build mod_ldap and mod_authnz_ldap? >> > >> > So since we removed LDAP support from APR trunk, that means those >> > modules currently can not be build using APR trunk, neither in httpd >> > trunk nor in httpd 2.4.x. Correct? >> >> I think this is correct. This was a pretty heated/sore issue to my >> recollection. Only the removal got done. >> > > That's nearly correct. > > The port to ap_ namespace was composed and committed to httpd trunk, by > myself. And in the heat of the argument, vetoed by the obvious party, so I > reasonably promptly reverted that, without a few minor tweaks that were > still necessary across various platforms or httpd build scenarios. > Actually, sf was kind enough to perform the revert, which included the initial work and several other committer's fixes; https://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=revision&revision=1150179 Initial vote discussion (similar to what we are having) occurred here; http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/httpd-dev/201107.mbox/%3c4e15e51e.4090...@rowe-clan.net%3e The veto of httpd accepting the ap_ldap code from APR happened here; http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/httpd-dev/201106.mbox/%3c4192dc1d-c0b9-42bb-b614-c3a41290f...@sharp.fm%3E AIUI, as he remains a PMC member, the veto remains binding per Roy's conclusion, whether it was made 9 weeks ago or 9 years ago. I do not, so just sharing historical pointers for those raising questions, no opinion remaining of HTTP Server PMC choices at all. But I did want to point out that the project did choose to ignore the vastly more secure PCRE 10 rewrite and is still stuck at PCRE 8 (although I run bleed builds all the time of httpd trunk X apr 2 trunk X pcre 10 with no issues at all.) In theory, if the APR project has enough maintainers (minimum 3, more + than - votes), then apr[+util] 1.x might persist for years after a 2.0 release, if such a release occurs.
