You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@httpd.apache.org by "William A. Rowe Jr." <wr...@rowe-clan.net> on 2014/03/13 20:37:07 UTC

Re: 2.2.27 tagged today

First, big props and thank yous to Rüdiger for a flurry of svn tree
and backport maintenance, I owe you >1 beers/coffees :)

Trouble.  From www.apache.org/dist/apr/ as near as I can tell the APR
project discontinued the 1.4.x branch by removing it from their package
distributions.  It seems inconceivable that we would ship something that
upstream has withdrawn from distribution.

As much as compatibility is important, httpd 2.2 will run just fine
under APR 1.3, 1.4 or 1.5.  I don't see an alternative to bumping our
included APR up to 1.5.0 (and APR-util to 1.5.3, but that could have
gone without saying).  I'm adjusting the Announcement draft language
to reflect that, right now.

Unless I hear loud objection in the next 55 minutes or so, the packages
will be up next hour with that minor revision bump to APR.

Bill

Re: 2.2.27 tagged today

Posted by Ruediger Pluem <rp...@apache.org>.

William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
> First, big props and thank yous to Rüdiger for a flurry of svn tree
> and backport maintenance, I owe you >1 beers/coffees :)

You are welcome. Thanks to you for doing RM. If I still find a free timeslot I try to help.

Regards

Rüdiger

Re: 2.2.27 tagged today

Posted by "William A. Rowe Jr." <wm...@gmail.com>.
On Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 2:37 PM, William A. Rowe Jr.
<wr...@rowe-clan.net> wrote:
>
> Trouble.  From www.apache.org/dist/apr/ as near as I can tell the APR
> project discontinued the 1.4.x branch by removing it from their package
> distributions.  It seems inconceivable that we would ship something that
> upstream has withdrawn from distribution.
>
> As much as compatibility is important, httpd 2.2 will run just fine
> under APR 1.3, 1.4 or 1.5.  I don't see an alternative to bumping our
> included APR up to 1.5.0 (and APR-util to 1.5.3, but that could have
> gone without saying).  I'm adjusting the Announcement draft language
> to reflect that, right now.

As I reviewed the Announcement2.2.txt - this really wasn't unprecedented,
we did the same with apr-util previously.  The Announcement text should
help make things clearer to the users.