question

[Jacek Prucia <j....@defbank.com.pl>]

Looking at httpd release procedure, it apears that when tagging
httpd-2.0, both apr and apr-util are also tagged. I've checked some apr
files and they don't have FLOOD_1_0 tag, so I assume this doesn't apply
to flood, am I right? If so, we can't figure out what apr/apr-util libs
are needed to compile certain flood tag (for example FLOOD_1_0 won't
compile against apr HEAD). This doesn't seem to be a big problem, but I
wanted to be sure if everybody are OK with this.

regards,
Jacek Prucia

Re: question

[Jacek Prucia <ja...@acn.waw.pl>]

On Tue, 09 Sep 2003 11:49:07 -0400
Geoffrey Young <ge...@modperlcookbook.org> wrote:

[...]
> the perl-framework just had this problem.  I ended up changing the code to 
> use the non-deprecated functions that exist in both branches of apr.  the 
> thought on the list was that everything should compile with 1.3, 
> APACHE_2_0_BRANCH (httpd 2.0/APR_0_9_BRANCH+APU_0_9_BRANCH) and cvs HEAD 
> (httpd 2.1) - compatibility back further than current CVS is not an issue.

This is pretty what I have expected. Not every apr based project out there
(e.g. Subversion) shares repo with apr. If they can live without tagging apr
everytime they do a release -- so can we :)

So... users get release tarballs, and developers must sync with HEAD.
Makes sense to me.

regards,
Jacek Prucia

Re: question

[Geoffrey Young <ge...@modperlcookbook.org>]

Jacek Prucia wrote:
> Looking at httpd release procedure, it apears that when tagging
> httpd-2.0, both apr and apr-util are also tagged. I've checked some apr
> files and they don't have FLOOD_1_0 tag, so I assume this doesn't apply
> to flood, am I right? If so, we can't figure out what apr/apr-util libs
> are needed to compile certain flood tag (for example FLOOD_1_0 won't
> compile against apr HEAD). This doesn't seem to be a big problem, but I
> wanted to be sure if everybody are OK with this.

the perl-framework just had this problem.  I ended up changing the code to 
use the non-deprecated functions that exist in both branches of apr.  the 
thought on the list was that everything should compile with 1.3, 
APACHE_2_0_BRANCH (httpd 2.0/APR_0_9_BRANCH+APU_0_9_BRANCH) and cvs HEAD 
(httpd 2.1) - compatibility back further than current CVS is not an issue.

http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=apache-test-dev&m=106276645705429&w=2

HTH

--Geoff

RE: question

[Sander Striker <st...@apache.org>]

> From: Jacek Prucia [mailto:j.prucia@defbank.com.pl]
> Sent: Tuesday, September 09, 2003 5:24 PM

> Looking at httpd release procedure, it apears that when tagging
> httpd-2.0, both apr and apr-util are also tagged. I've checked some apr
> files and they don't have FLOOD_1_0 tag, so I assume this doesn't apply
> to flood, am I right?

You are correct.

> If so, we can't figure out what apr/apr-util libs are needed to compile
> certain flood tag (for example FLOOD_1_0 won't compile against apr HEAD).
> This doesn't seem to be a big problem, but I wanted to be sure if everybody
> are OK with this.

I'd say, require apr 1.0 for this release.  You'll probably be able to sync
the release nicely.

Sander