Netware naming convention

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

I was just looking at http://www.apache.org/dist/apr/binaries/netware/
(considering how to distribute win32 binaries, by coincidence).

It seems that the netware distro of libapr.nlm is simply incorrect; as
it's not named libapr-1.nlm, it can't coexist with applications compiled
against apr-0.9.

Obiously, fixing it breaks the rules, leaving it breaks the rules.
I was thinking that fixing it in 1.3.0 is probably the most painless
transistion.

Comments from the netware platform peeps?

Bill

Re: Netware naming convention

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

  Yep, you are absolutely correct and I will have to look into getting
this fixed for 1.3.  I wasn't really thinking about running apr-0.9 and
apr-1.x side-by-side mainly because this isn't a common practice on
NetWare.  Most of the time NetWare just has a single version of a
library which is backwards compatible.  And since realistically the only
APR application running on NetWare is HTTPD, 99% of the NetWare users
will probably just upgrade rather than try to run two different
versions.  However, this shouldn't be hard to fix and it would probably
be a good idea to do so.  

Brad

>>> On 9/30/2005 at 9:56:22 pm, in message
<43...@rowe-clan.net>,
"William A. Rowe, Jr." <wr...@rowe-clan.net> wrote:
> I was just looking at
http://www.apache.org/dist/apr/binaries/netware/ 
> (considering how to distribute win32 binaries, by coincidence).
> 
> It seems that the netware distro of libapr.nlm is simply incorrect;
as
> it's not named libapr-1.nlm, it can't coexist with applications
compiled
> against apr-0.9.
> 
> Obiously, fixing it breaks the rules, leaving it breaks the rules.
> I was thinking that fixing it in 1.3.0 is probably the most painless
> transistion.
> 
> Comments from the netware platform peeps?
> 
> Bill