Single-maintainer platforms was Re: RTC killed the open source project

[Brad Nicholes <BN...@novell.com>]

  But that is beside the point.  Nothing should block a release for an
extended period of time which apr-dbd apparently is.  There are
technical reasons why apr and apr-util is built together into a single
library on the NetWare platform.  99% of the time this is not a problem.
 But in this one case because of the refactoring of the LDAP code within
apr-util, changes in apr-util affected the build files for apr on
NetWare.  
  NetWare is not blocking a release of anything.  It's code is ready to
go.  It is the fact that apr-dbd API's are not fully cooked and ready to
be released that is blocking things.  There have been other changes
within apr-util besides the NetWare build code that should be released
as well.  But they also can't be released because of apr-dbd.  If
apr-dbd is going to continue to hold up a release of apr-util for any
reason, it needs to be pulled off into it's own -dev branch until it is
ready.

Brad

> 
>>>> On Tuesday, August 09, 2005 at 10:45 am, in message
> <83...@Justin-Erenkrantzs-Computer.local>, Justin

> Erenkrantz
> <ju...@erenkrantz.com> wrote:
> 
>No, the problem is that Netware's build system is broken.  It
shouldn't be 
>tied together by version.  Keeping them tied together breaks our
compatibility 
>rules.  We should always be able to mix and match apr and apr-util
versions.
>
>Since Netware only has one maintainer, if it's not important for you
to fix 
>it, then it's not important enough to block a release.  -- justin

Re: Single-maintainer platforms was Re: RTC killed the open source project

[Garrett Rooney <ro...@electricjellyfish.net>]

Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
> --On August 9, 2005 7:54:17 PM +0200 Graham Leggett <mi...@sharp.fm> 
> wrote:
> 
>> within apr (like libtool and some other files). It would be nice if 
>> apr-util
>> could access apr cleanly via the apr-1-config mechanism, rather than
>> depending on build artifacts. This has been on my plate to fix for a 
>> while,
>> but time has not been on my side.
> 
> 
> It's done that since before we went 1.0.  (I almost always build 
> apr-util from an installed apr.)  Or, is there something else?  -- justin

I think you need apr in order to do a buildconf for apr-util, so if 
you're building right out of svn it is needed, but perhaps not if you're 
just compiling a release version.

-garrett

Re: Single-maintainer platforms was Re: RTC killed the open source project

[Justin Erenkrantz <ju...@erenkrantz.com>]

--On August 9, 2005 7:54:17 PM +0200 Graham Leggett <mi...@sharp.fm> wrote:

> within apr (like libtool and some other files). It would be nice if apr-util
> could access apr cleanly via the apr-1-config mechanism, rather than
> depending on build artifacts. This has been on my plate to fix for a while,
> but time has not been on my side.

It's done that since before we went 1.0.  (I almost always build apr-util from 
an installed apr.)  Or, is there something else?  -- justin

Re: Single-maintainer platforms was Re: RTC killed the open source project

[Graham Leggett <mi...@sharp.fm>]

Justin Erenkrantz wrote:

> But, we're not trying to do an apr-util release!
> 
> Our policy (discussed before here on dev@) is that apr and apr-util are 
> independent libraries that need not share version numbers or release 
> cycles.
> 
> Hence, Netware is blocking the apr (not apr-util!) release when every 
> other platform allows them to be split up properly.
> 
> If anyone else could fix Netware, we would have done so.  -- justin

Releasing an apr-util alongside apr is a simple thing to do, so to say 
that it's "blocking" an apr release is a bit extreme.

However making sure that apr-util and apr can be released separately is 
a good thing.

Apr-util still has some lingering dependancies on the unix build system 
within apr (like libtool and some other files). It would be nice if 
apr-util could access apr cleanly via the apr-1-config mechanism, rather 
than depending on build artifacts. This has been on my plate to fix for 
a while, but time has not been on my side.

Regards,
Graham
--

Re: Single-maintainer platforms was Re: RTC killed the open source project

[Justin Erenkrantz <ju...@erenkrantz.com>]

--On August 9, 2005 11:17:31 AM -0600 Brad Nicholes <BN...@novell.com> 
wrote:

>   But that is beside the point.  Nothing should block a release for an
> extended period of time which apr-dbd apparently is.  There are
> technical reasons why apr and apr-util is built together into a single
> library on the NetWare platform.  99% of the time this is not a problem.
>  But in this one case because of the refactoring of the LDAP code within
> apr-util, changes in apr-util affected the build files for apr on
> NetWare.

But, we're not trying to do an apr-util release!

Our policy (discussed before here on dev@) is that apr and apr-util are 
independent libraries that need not share version numbers or release cycles.

Hence, Netware is blocking the apr (not apr-util!) release when every other 
platform allows them to be split up properly.

If anyone else could fix Netware, we would have done so.  -- justin