On Jul 4, 2006, at 5:54 PM, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
Roy T. Fielding wrote:
I don't see any reason why apr-util would distribute OpenSSL in any
form -- it needs to compile against the installed SSL library
(perhaps
a card) for the same reasons as httpd.
Again - you tout the perspective for an OS which is 'feature complete'
(e.g., includes the compiler tools.) For OS's which rarely include
the compiler tools, binaries make sense. There is no reason that the
APR project might not provide APR, APR-util binaries at some point,
and
if that means there's a dependency on libcrypto.so/libssl.so, then
perhaps
those two dependent files as well with appropriate notification.
FWIW, we have had requests for apr binaries. Nobody's quite
bothered yet
since in the 0.9 family we really didn't expect people to install
'apr'.
With 1.x we transition to an 'installed apr' model. Perhaps by
2.0, we
will genuinely expect folks to obtain apr independent of the
application
they are installing.
I have no doubt that apr will be distributing its own binary packages
soon.
However, I think we need a more intelligent design than "compile
every possible library and bundle with the distribution." Shared
libraries should not include independent shared libraries. Instead,
the installation process can be made such that it late binds with
whatever has already been installed. Someone installing APR is capable
of following an instruction that says "No SSL library detected; you
must install one first, perhaps from one of the following locations ..."
The same will need to be done for all the DB options anyway.
....Roy
