[RESULT] Re: [discuss] Bundle apr/apu with 2.4.x

[Jim Jagielski <ji...@jaguNET.com>]

+1: Rüdiger, Gün, jim, Rainer, noel.butler, jblond
-1: wrowe, Graham, nick, gstein, stefen, kaspar, mamfelt

So it looks like, both binding and binding/non-binding, it's
close, but that, in general, not-"bundling" is what's desired.

I have no desire, on the other-hand, to hold a T&R for the
"deprecate --with-included-apr" patch since, to be honest,
I doubt if we'll ever see it in timely fashion. I will, however,
update configure so that it no longer mentions the httpd-*-deps'
file.

For me, I consider it a priority to get 2.4.x out...

Re: [RESULT] [discuss] Bundle apr/apu with 2.4.x

[Jim Jagielski <ji...@apache.org>]

On Feb 8, 2012, at 2:11 PM, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:

> On 2/8/2012 7:44 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
>> 
>> I have no desire, on the other-hand, to hold a T&R for the
>> "deprecate --with-included-apr" patch since, to be honest,
>> I doubt if we'll ever see it in timely fashion. I will, however,
>> update configure so that it no longer mentions the httpd-*-deps'
>> file.
> 
> Because I was suggesting 'deprecating', not voiding the existing
> behavior, such an enhancement can happen after 2.4.1. No?
> 

Yep. That's why I'm not worried about holding things up.

Re: [RESULT] Re: [discuss] Bundle apr/apu with 2.4.x

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

On 2/8/2012 7:44 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
> 
> I have no desire, on the other-hand, to hold a T&R for the
> "deprecate --with-included-apr" patch since, to be honest,
> I doubt if we'll ever see it in timely fashion. I will, however,
> update configure so that it no longer mentions the httpd-*-deps'
> file.

Because I was suggesting 'deprecating', not voiding the existing
behavior, such an enhancement can happen after 2.4.1. No?