You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@apr.apache.org by Joe Orton <jo...@redhat.com> on 2002/06/20 21:56:25 UTC
Packaging/version question
Hi folks. For creating binary packages of APR and APR-util, would it be
acceptable to use package versions of "0.9" until an official APR
release is made, since I've seen talk of the first release being "1.0"?
Regards,
joe
Re: Packaging/version question
Posted by Garrett Rooney <ro...@electricjellyfish.net>.
On Thu, Jun 20, 2002 at 01:08:11PM -0700, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 20, 2002 at 08:56:25PM +0100, Joe Orton wrote:
> > Hi folks. For creating binary packages of APR and APR-util, would it be
> > acceptable to use package versions of "0.9" until an official APR
> > release is made, since I've seen talk of the first release being "1.0"?
>
> FWIW, I think the SVN Linux and FreeBSD packages use the date rather
> than a version number for its bundled APR and APR-util. I would
> recommend doing that rather than placing a bogus version number on it
> that the ASF would be expected to support.
at least for the FreeBSD package it does, i'm not sure about the linux
one.
> Now, if we decide that we want to start moving towards releasing
> APR on our own, that's a different story. However, before doing
> so, we'd have to resolve all of the compat/versioning stuff. And,
> wrowe just made that task harder with his recent commits to add
> backwards compat for APR to the httpd 2.0.35 release. We'd have
> to revert all of that before releasing APR on its own. -- justin
it would be very nice to see apr move towards a stable release of its
own. speaking as the person who has tried to find a way to make the
freebsd apache2 and subversion ports use the same apr, it's been
virtually impossible to date, and i think having a separate release of
apr that other packages could target, rather than everyone just
shipping their own, would be a very good thing.
i realize that this is a bit of a change for the apache developers,
who are not used to being tied to something like this for thier
releases, but if we want apr to be used by other programs (and i
personally do want that), then it's a step that needs to be taken, and
sooner rather than later in my opinion.
-garrett
--
garrett rooney Remember, any design flaw you're
rooneg@electricjellyfish.net sufficiently snide about becomes
http://electricjellyfish.net/ a feature. -- Dan Sugalski
Re: Packaging/version question
Posted by Justin Erenkrantz <je...@apache.org>.
On Thu, Jun 20, 2002 at 08:56:25PM +0100, Joe Orton wrote:
> Hi folks. For creating binary packages of APR and APR-util, would it be
> acceptable to use package versions of "0.9" until an official APR
> release is made, since I've seen talk of the first release being "1.0"?
FWIW, I think the SVN Linux and FreeBSD packages use the date rather
than a version number for its bundled APR and APR-util. I would
recommend doing that rather than placing a bogus version number on it
that the ASF would be expected to support.
Now, if we decide that we want to start moving towards releasing
APR on our own, that's a different story. However, before doing
so, we'd have to resolve all of the compat/versioning stuff. And,
wrowe just made that task harder with his recent commits to add
backwards compat for APR to the httpd 2.0.35 release. We'd have
to revert all of that before releasing APR on its own. -- justin
Re: Packaging/version question
Posted by 'Aaron Bannert' <aa...@clove.org>.
On Thu, Jun 20, 2002 at 01:07:45PM -0700, Ryan Bloom wrote:
> > From: Aaron Bannert [mailto:aaron@clove.org]
> > I move we tag with APR_0_9_0 so that we can maintain consistent
> > versioning across 3rd party vendors.
>
> Why do we care about that? The vendor is responsible for ensuring the
> quality of the release if we haven't actually released the software.
> Also, we don't try to answer support questions that come from packages
> from vendors. Finally, even if we tag, you won't get all of the vendors
> to use that tag.
I don't know anything about implied support on releases or the definition
of what a beta release of APR might be, but I do know that other products
which depend on APR are being shipped, and they need a version number
to point at. I'd prefer that this version number bear some significance
in terms of stability, given our track record on the HTTPD project
I don't see us making a solid 1.0 release of APR for a few more months.
I'd rather have us consider marking what we have as a milestone
(it has been fairly stable lately).
> I guess my basic thought is that if we are going to tag 0_9_0, then I
> would assume that was a beta release, and in that case, we should use an
> actual beta tag, not a fake 0.9.0 tag. If it isn't a beta, then we
> shouldn't be tagging it.
I guess that depends on how we want to define "beta" for APR releases.
-aaron
RE: Packaging/version question
Posted by Ryan Bloom <rb...@covalent.net>.
> From: Aaron Bannert [mailto:aaron@clove.org]
>
> On Thu, Jun 20, 2002 at 08:56:25PM +0100, Joe Orton wrote:
> > Hi folks. For creating binary packages of APR and APR-util, would
it be
> > acceptable to use package versions of "0.9" until an official APR
> > release is made, since I've seen talk of the first release being
"1.0"?
>
> I move we tag with APR_0_9_0 so that we can maintain consistent
> versioning across 3rd party vendors.
Why do we care about that? The vendor is responsible for ensuring the
quality of the release if we haven't actually released the software.
Also, we don't try to answer support questions that come from packages
from vendors. Finally, even if we tag, you won't get all of the vendors
to use that tag.
As a member of a company that ships APR as a part of our products, we
won't use an APR_0_9_0 tag for anything we ship. If APR goes to 1.0,
then we will move to that, but until then, we will continue to use a
date tag.
I guess my basic thought is that if we are going to tag 0_9_0, then I
would assume that was a beta release, and in that case, we should use an
actual beta tag, not a fake 0.9.0 tag. If it isn't a beta, then we
shouldn't be tagging it.
Ryan
Re: Packaging/version question
Posted by Aaron Bannert <aa...@clove.org>.
On Thu, Jun 20, 2002 at 08:56:25PM +0100, Joe Orton wrote:
> Hi folks. For creating binary packages of APR and APR-util, would it be
> acceptable to use package versions of "0.9" until an official APR
> release is made, since I've seen talk of the first release being "1.0"?
I move we tag with APR_0_9_0 so that we can maintain consistent
versioning across 3rd party vendors.
-aaron
Re: Packaging/version question
Posted by Thom May <th...@planetarytramp.net>.
* Ryan Bloom (rbb@covalent.net) wrote :
> Feel free, but I don't think we want to actually tag or release that
> version in CVS. If we tag that, it becomes something of an official
> release, which means we have to support it. I would much rather see us
> put the effort forth to make APR release quality and release it.
>
+1
-Thom
> Ryan
>
> ----------------------------------------------
> Ryan Bloom rbb@covalent.net
> 645 Howard St. rbb@apache.org
> San Francisco, CA
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Joe Orton [mailto:jorton@redhat.com]
> > Sent: Thursday, June 20, 2002 12:56 PM
> > To: dev@apr.apache.org
> > Subject: Packaging/version question
> >
> > Hi folks. For creating binary packages of APR and APR-util, would it
> be
> > acceptable to use package versions of "0.9" until an official APR
> > release is made, since I've seen talk of the first release being
> "1.0"?
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > joe
--
Thom May -> thom@planetarytramp.net
"Historically speaking, the presences of wheels in Unix
has never precluded their reinvention." - Larry Wall
RE: Packaging/version question
Posted by Ryan Bloom <rb...@covalent.net>.
Feel free, but I don't think we want to actually tag or release that
version in CVS. If we tag that, it becomes something of an official
release, which means we have to support it. I would much rather see us
put the effort forth to make APR release quality and release it.
Ryan
----------------------------------------------
Ryan Bloom rbb@covalent.net
645 Howard St. rbb@apache.org
San Francisco, CA
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Joe Orton [mailto:jorton@redhat.com]
> Sent: Thursday, June 20, 2002 12:56 PM
> To: dev@apr.apache.org
> Subject: Packaging/version question
>
> Hi folks. For creating binary packages of APR and APR-util, would it
be
> acceptable to use package versions of "0.9" until an official APR
> release is made, since I've seen talk of the first release being
"1.0"?
>
> Regards,
>
> joe