On Wed, Sep 11, 2002 at 07:30:24PM -0700, Justin Erenkrantz wrote: > On Wed, Sep 11, 2002 at 07:16:26PM -0700, Aaron Bannert wrote: > > We shouldn't ever be installing apr or apr-util as part of flood. Ideally > > we will depend on an already-installed version of flood, be that in some > > standard location or not. Some work has been done lately to make apr > > and apr-util able to be independently installable. > > No, we will include apr and apr-util in flood releases and use > them when the user doesn't specify an installed apr location. > That seems to be the best strategy devised so far since apr and > apr-util aren't wide-spread enough to not include them. We need > to make the barrier to entry as low as we can make it. > > Yet, when apr and apr-util are widespread, people can use the > --with-apr and --with-apr-util configure options. As the APR > release strategy matures, we may finetune the process. But, I'd > think the point when httpd-2.0 and SVN don't include apr and > apr-util in their releases is when flood should. > > For now, we must bundle apr and apr-util with flood releases.
Yes, *should* was the key word above. I'm fine with bundling it for now, but as soon as apr and apr-util can be installed on their own we stop bundling it. To me having bundled apr and apr-util just makes everything way more complicated. The threshold in my mind has nothing to do with when other projects switch. Anyway, this is a premature discussion, I'm still convinced that we must install by default in to /usr/local just like every other autoconf project*. *(except Apache httpd) > Fine, remove the AC_PREFIX_DEFAULT line and then add config.layout > support. =) -- justin config.layout support is completely unnecessary. autoconf already handles this, and IMHO apache goes overboard. All the stuff we need is already in autoconf, and we should stick to the same defaults as every other autoconf-based package just for the sake of our sanity and the sanity of our users. -aaron
