apr-config and apr-1-config

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

Hi all,

I've noticed that the most recent CVS of 1.0.0 installs both 
/usr/bin/apr-config, and /usr/bin/apr-1-config. Is this intentional?

Regards,
Graham
--

Re: apr-config and apr-1-config

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

William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:

> If Graham's efforts, with Joe's useful feedback, produces a build system
> which cleanly lets 0.9 and 1.0 (and future releases) coexist, I'm satisfied 
> we finished APR 1.0.

I've just tried to install an RPM of httpd 2.0.50 onto a system that 
already has RPMs of apr-1.0.0 and apr-util-1.0.0 installed, and the 
httpd RPM installs cleanly with no conflicts. The httpd RPM contains 
httpd + apr-0.9 + apr-util-0.9 rolled up into a single RPM.

A further question though - is it worth making the effort to make RPMs 
for apr (and apr-util) v0.9, or is it sufficient to leave it as it is 
now: httpd v2.0.x includes a rolled up version of apr v0.9 in a single 
package.

In other words, what other projects apart from httpd are using apr v0.9 
and not apr v1.0?

Regards,
Graham
--

Re: apr-config and apr-1-config

["William A. Rowe, Jr." <wr...@rowe-clan.net>]

At 11:20 AM 7/2/2004, you wrote:
>> At 07:29 PM 7/1/2004, Greg Stein wrote:
>> >On Thu, Jul 01, 2004 at 05:38:34PM -0500, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
>> >> If we leave it, and side-by-side installs are broken, this does not
>seem
>> >> like a good initial release point for 1.0 :(
>> >
>> >"for the moment"
>> >
>> >Joe said it *twice*. Was it that non-obvious?
>>
>> No, it was obvious.  However another party is rolling what he hopes to be
>> the initial release on Friday, on his schedule.  So if we *release* on Fri
>> this would not be good.  If it gets fixed next week and we can hold the
>> release till next week, all would be lovely.
>>
>> Competing interests - and my message wasn't directed at Joe or Graham
>
>Damn. Competing interests? So, no-one else wants to get 1.0 out teh door.
>Wow, must have been in dream land for a long, long time then...

Speed/Schedule of releasing 1.0 v.s. Completeness/Interoperability w/ 0.9.

I for one am glad you've put folks feet to the fire so to speak, and laid out
an ambitious plan for release of 1.0 this month :)

Sometimes, until you try to implement, what seemed just fine in a build
system turns out to be ineffective when confronted with rolling usable rpm's,
deploying side by side with previous versions, etc.  It wasn't until apr-1.0
that the apr/httpd side has ever really considered side-by-side installation
issues, since we need the legacy 0.9 for some time to support httpd 2.0,
and will need 1.0 installed and ready for httpd 2.1+, svn, jakarta-jk2 and
so forth.

Graham's RPM efforts have put a magnifying glass to every open parallel
install issue - I think it's wonderful that he created the perfect example
case whether he intended to, or not :)

>> who have been working hard at the rpm/parallel install issues.  It was
>> directed at David who was hoping (expecting?) to roll an RC3 candidate
>> today.
>
>Well, some form of explanation of the above would be more helpful than
>cryptic comments.

Sorry, it was my reaction to Greg's comments - which read (to me) that
he was saying yes - table this for now, release 1.0.0, install and clobber
the existing shared apr 0.9.5 install, then figure out how to get it right with
release 1.0.1.  That concerned me.

>1/10 on helpfulness.

I believe, with the possible exception of apr_finfo_t::ctime (and still asking
for feedback), that APR is code-complete API stable for 1.0.  With apr-iconv designated as a mutable implementation detail of the public apr_xlate 
interface, that is not an issue either.  I spent no time in apr-util so I really
don't have an opinion either way.

If Graham's efforts, with Joe's useful feedback, produces a build system
which cleanly lets 0.9 and 1.0 (and future releases) coexist, I'm satisfied 
we finished APR 1.0.

I'd be very happy if we left apr-config alone (as 0.9), created apr-1-config
or apr-1.0-config with a symlink named apr-1-config, and let the consumers
attempt to use apr-[n..1]-config down to apr-config, based on what THEIR
application is targeted at and capable of supporting.  The version argument
solution to apr-config also sounds like it could solve the problem.

Bill

Re: apr-config and apr-1-config

[Paul Querna <ch...@force-elite.com>]

On Fri, 2004-07-02 at 12:52 -0400, Joe Schaefer wrote:
> "David Reid" <da...@jetnet.co.uk> writes:
> 
> [...]
> 
> > Damn. Competing interests? So, no-one else wants to get 1.0 out teh
> > door.  Wow, must have been in dream land for a long, long time then...
> 
> The s/apr-config/apr-1-config/ is certainly going to generate
> extra work for apr applications that currently build fine with 
> either 0.9 or HEAD. For example apxs and all apxs-dependent 
> apache modules that want to support httpd-2.2 will need to use 
> something better than 
> 
>   APR_CONFIG=`$APXS -q APR_BINDIR`/apr-config
> 
> However, IMO it's absolutely worth the extra effort
> because the name change will guarantee httpd-2.0's 
> apxs still supplies such modules with the right apr lib.
> 

This is a separate issue for APXS.  It needs another -q item added in
2.1 telling us the name of the binary, not just the directory. (to allow
a parallel install of APR, and possibly httpd-2.0/2.1)

-Paul Querna

Re: apr-config and apr-1-config

[Joe Schaefer <jo...@sunstarsys.com>]

"David Reid" <da...@jetnet.co.uk> writes:

[...]

> Damn. Competing interests? So, no-one else wants to get 1.0 out teh
> door.  Wow, must have been in dream land for a long, long time then...

The s/apr-config/apr-1-config/ is certainly going to generate
extra work for apr applications that currently build fine with 
either 0.9 or HEAD. For example apxs and all apxs-dependent 
apache modules that want to support httpd-2.2 will need to use 
something better than 

  APR_CONFIG=`$APXS -q APR_BINDIR`/apr-config

However, IMO it's absolutely worth the extra effort
because the name change will guarantee httpd-2.0's 
apxs still supplies such modules with the right apr lib.


-- 
Joe Schaefer

Re: apr-config and apr-1-config

[David Reid <da...@jetnet.co.uk>]

> At 07:29 PM 7/1/2004, Greg Stein wrote:
> >On Thu, Jul 01, 2004 at 05:38:34PM -0500, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
> >> If we leave it, and side-by-side installs are broken, this does not
seem
> >> like a good initial release point for 1.0 :(
> >
> >"for the moment"
> >
> >Joe said it *twice*. Was it that non-obvious?
>
> No, it was obvious.  However another party is rolling what he hopes to be
> the initial release on Friday, on his schedule.  So if we *release* on Fri
> this would not be good.  If it gets fixed next week and we can hold the
> release till next week, all would be lovely.
>
> Competing interests - and my message wasn't directed at Joe or Graham

Damn. Competing interests? So, no-one else wants to get 1.0 out teh door.
Wow, must have been in dream land for a long, long time then...

> who have been working hard at the rpm/parallel install issues.  It was
> directed at David who was hoping (expecting?) to roll an RC3 candidate
> today.

Well, some form of explanation of the above would be more helpful than
cryptic comments.

1/10 on helpfulness.

david

Re: apr-config and apr-1-config

["William A. Rowe, Jr." <wr...@rowe-clan.net>]

At 07:29 PM 7/1/2004, Greg Stein wrote:
>On Thu, Jul 01, 2004 at 05:38:34PM -0500, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
>> If we leave it, and side-by-side installs are broken, this does not seem
>> like a good initial release point for 1.0 :(
>
>"for the moment"
>
>Joe said it *twice*. Was it that non-obvious?

No, it was obvious.  However another party is rolling what he hopes to be
the initial release on Friday, on his schedule.  So if we *release* on Fri
this would not be good.  If it gets fixed next week and we can hold the
release till next week, all would be lovely.

Competing interests - and my message wasn't directed at Joe or Graham
who have been working hard at the rpm/parallel install issues.  It was
directed at David who was hoping (expecting?) to roll an RC3 candidate
today.

Bill

Bill  

Re: apr-config and apr-1-config

[Greg Stein <gs...@lyra.org>]

On Thu, Jul 01, 2004 at 05:38:34PM -0500, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
> At 04:55 PM 7/1/2004, Joe Orton wrote:
> >On Thu, Jul 01, 2004 at 11:45:44PM +0200, Graham Leggett wrote:
> >> Joe Orton wrote:
> >> 
> >> >>I've noticed that the most recent CVS of 1.0.0 installs both 
> >> >>/usr/bin/apr-config, and /usr/bin/apr-1-config. Is this intentional?
> >> 
> >> >Yes, for the moment.
> >> 
> >> How do you suggest the RPM should handle this? - at the moment 
> >> installing a v0 RPM and a v1 RPM simultaneously will cause a conflict. 
> >> Should we just leave it as is for now?
> >
> >Yes, just leave it for the moment I guess.
> 
> If we leave it, and side-by-side installs are broken, this does not seem
> like a good initial release point for 1.0 :(


"for the moment"

Joe said it *twice*. Was it that non-obvious?


-- 
Greg Stein, http://www.lyra.org/

Re: apr-config and apr-1-config

["William A. Rowe, Jr." <wr...@rowe-clan.net>]

At 04:55 PM 7/1/2004, Joe Orton wrote:
>On Thu, Jul 01, 2004 at 11:45:44PM +0200, Graham Leggett wrote:
>> Joe Orton wrote:
>> 
>> >>I've noticed that the most recent CVS of 1.0.0 installs both 
>> >>/usr/bin/apr-config, and /usr/bin/apr-1-config. Is this intentional?
>> 
>> >Yes, for the moment.
>> 
>> How do you suggest the RPM should handle this? - at the moment 
>> installing a v0 RPM and a v1 RPM simultaneously will cause a conflict. 
>> Should we just leave it as is for now?
>
>Yes, just leave it for the moment I guess.

If we leave it, and side-by-side installs are broken, this does not seem
like a good initial release point for 1.0 :(

Bill

Re: apr-config and apr-1-config

[Joe Orton <jo...@redhat.com>]

On Thu, Jul 01, 2004 at 11:45:44PM +0200, Graham Leggett wrote:
> Joe Orton wrote:
> 
> >>I've noticed that the most recent CVS of 1.0.0 installs both 
> >>/usr/bin/apr-config, and /usr/bin/apr-1-config. Is this intentional?
> 
> >Yes, for the moment.
> 
> How do you suggest the RPM should handle this? - at the moment 
> installing a v0 RPM and a v1 RPM simultaneously will cause a conflict. 
> Should we just leave it as is for now?

Yes, just leave it for the moment I guess.

joe

Re: apr-config and apr-1-config

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

Joe Orton wrote:

>>I've noticed that the most recent CVS of 1.0.0 installs both 
>>/usr/bin/apr-config, and /usr/bin/apr-1-config. Is this intentional?

> Yes, for the moment.

How do you suggest the RPM should handle this? - at the moment 
installing a v0 RPM and a v1 RPM simultaneously will cause a conflict. 
Should we just leave it as is for now?

Regards,
Graham
--

Re: apr-config and apr-1-config

[Joe Orton <jo...@redhat.com>]

On Thu, Jul 01, 2004 at 11:10:25PM +0200, Graham Leggett wrote:
> I've noticed that the most recent CVS of 1.0.0 installs both 
> /usr/bin/apr-config, and /usr/bin/apr-1-config. Is this intentional?

Yes, for the moment.