Re: svn commit: r265755 - in /apr/apr-util/trunk/ldap: apr_ldap_init.c apr_ldap_option.c

["Roy T. Fielding" <fi...@gbiv.com>]

We have no need to support anything other than the latest updates
of Win2k and WinXP.  Anything other than that should not be running
a server and can continue using our old builds if needed.

....Roy

Re: svn commit: r265755 - in /apr/apr-util/trunk/ldap: apr_ldap_init.c apr_ldap_option.c

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

At 01:39 PM 9/1/2005, Roy T. Fielding wrote:
>We have no need to support anything other than the latest updates
>of Win2k and WinXP.  Anything other than that should not be running
>a server and can continue using our old builds if needed.

+1 (I think we agreed Win9x is dead).  It will be worthwhile
to note what the results are, so we can advise users of specific
builds and operating systems, to avoid the new version.

However, I'd no more suggest we ditch WinNT SP6, than to ditch
Solaris 2.6 or Linux 2.2 kernels.  If they work, or someone
wants to keep them working, more power to those contributors.

Bill

Re: svn commit: r265755 - in /apr/apr-util/trunk/ldap: apr_ldap_init.c apr_ldap_option.c

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

At 01:39 PM 9/1/2005, Roy T. Fielding wrote:
>We have no need to support anything other than the latest updates
>of Win2k and WinXP.  Anything other than that should not be running
>a server and can continue using our old builds if needed.

+1 (I think we agreed Win9x is dead).  It will be worthwhile
to note what the results are, so we can advise users of specific
builds and operating systems, to avoid the new version.

However, I'd no more suggest we ditch WinNT SP6, than to ditch
Solaris 2.6 or Linux 2.2 kernels.  If they work, or someone
wants to keep them working, more power to those contributors.

Bill

Re: svn commit: r265755 - in /apr/apr-util/trunk/ldap: apr_ldap_init.c apr_ldap_option.c

[Branko Čibej <br...@xbc.nu>]

William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:

> Brane,
>
>   actually I'm thinking that the pre-NT, post-NT split is a perfect
> justification for two different builds, and was working on that for
> the Apache 2.2 installer.  Running 9x/NT detection throughout APR just
> seems silly, when you consider that it's one or the other.

I wish there was a simple way to make this choice on the fly, so that I 
could, e.g., build _one_ Subversion package with both APR versions and 
not worry about which OS it's used on. Oh, well.

>   Folks upgrading from borked Win9x OS's to NT feel no pain.  Folks that
> downgrade to 9x should be shot on site :)

Or, failing that, on sight. I agree. :)

-- Brane

Re: svn commit: r265755 - in /apr/apr-util/trunk/ldap: apr_ldap_init.c apr_ldap_option.c

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

Brane,

   actually I'm thinking that the pre-NT, post-NT split is a perfect
justification for two different builds, and was working on that for
the Apache 2.2 installer.  Running 9x/NT detection throughout APR just
seems silly, when you consider that it's one or the other.

   Folks upgrading from borked Win9x OS's to NT feel no pain.  Folks that
downgrade to 9x should be shot on site :)

Bill

Branko Čibej wrote:
> Roy T. Fielding wrote:
> 
>> We have no need to support anything other than the latest updates
>> of Win2k and WinXP.  Anything other than that should not be running
>> a server and can continue using our old builds if needed.
> 
> 
> *Sigh*, yes, fine, but APR is used by stuff other than httpd, some of 
> which aren't servers. Subversion's one of them. It doesn't use ldap, but 
> does use apr_util.
> 
> If the goal of this project is to produce a portable runtime, then it 
> has to run on less-than-bleeding-edge machines (even if some features 
> aren't available). If, OTOH, the goal is a portable runtime for httpd, 
> then perhaps Subversion should reconsider its use of APR...
> 
> (No, I don't think having different flavours of the APR DLLs for 
> different versions of Windows is acceptable.)
> 
> -- Brane
> 
> 
> .
> 

Re: svn commit: r265755 - in /apr/apr-util/trunk/ldap: apr_ldap_init.c apr_ldap_option.c

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

Roy T.Fielding wrote:
> 
> The goal of this project is to release software that works on as
> many platforms as possible.  The impossible platforms can go to hell.
> If you can produce a build that works on older platforms, great,
> but the other projects cannot wait just because we can't maintain
> ABI across the last 10 years of third-party DLLs.  Find something
> we can maintain across the next 10 years and stick with that instead.

AFA Apache httpd is concerned, +1.

AFA Apache APR is concerned, -0.  Hell, MS can't even keep code building
for three years, never mind 10, with their major tool changes.  I'm now
struggling with mod_aspdotnet for 2003+ VC compilers, which cracked
everything (.NET-C++-wise).

That isn't to say all of APR should 'just work' when building to borked
platforms, but if a dev wants to restrict themselves to some subset,
then their app should 'sorta' work.

We are a portability runtime.  I never expected that we will be able to
support every BBF (backwards broken platform), but should probably be
able to offer some subset, and at least build "It Worked" apps.

Bill

Re: svn commit: r265755 - in /apr/apr-util/trunk/ldap: apr_ldap_init.c apr_ldap_option.c

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

Roy T.Fielding wrote:
> On Sep 5, 2005, at 6:59 PM, Branko Čibej wrote:
> 
>> That would push an IMHO unacceptable packaging burden on dependent 
>> projects. There's a perfectly good alternative that's used elswhere in 
>> APR, that is, dynamic binding to OS APIs.
> 
> 
> Patches are good.  Nobody is saying you can't fix it -- I am just
> not willing to wait until it is fixed by divine intervention.

++1!!!  (sorry for multiple posts, should set up a queue time on this
new emailer).

Re: svn commit: r265755 - in /apr/apr-util/trunk/ldap: apr_ldap_init.c apr_ldap_option.c

[Branko Čibej <br...@xbc.nu>]

Roy T. Fielding wrote:

> On Sep 5, 2005, at 6:59 PM, Branko Čibej wrote:
>
>> That would push an IMHO unacceptable packaging burden on dependent 
>> projects. There's a perfectly good alternative that's used elswhere 
>> in APR, that is, dynamic binding to OS APIs.
>
>
> Patches are good.  Nobody is saying you can't fix it -- I am just
> not willing to wait until it is fixed by divine intervention.

Fair enough.

-- Brane

Re: svn commit: r265755 - in /apr/apr-util/trunk/ldap: apr_ldap_init.c apr_ldap_option.c

["Roy T. Fielding" <fi...@gbiv.com>]

On Sep 5, 2005, at 6:59 PM, Branko Čibej wrote:
> That would push an IMHO unacceptable packaging burden on dependent 
> projects. There's a perfectly good alternative that's used elswhere in 
> APR, that is, dynamic binding to OS APIs.

Patches are good.  Nobody is saying you can't fix it -- I am just
not willing to wait until it is fixed by divine intervention.

....Roy

Re: svn commit: r265755 - in /apr/apr-util/trunk/ldap: apr_ldap_init.c apr_ldap_option.c

[Branko Čibej <br...@xbc.nu>]

Graham Leggett wrote:

> Branko Čibej wrote:
>
>> I wish that were true. People use Subversion (client-only, of course) 
>> on Win98. I could hardly believe it myself, but it's a fact.
>
>
> Enough people to make it worth worrying about?

IMHO, yes. at least, up to now, we've done our best to make the 
Subversion client do a reasonable job on those systems. APR's been a 
great help here.

Besides, AIUI this is not even about Win9x; NT and Win2k are affected, too.

> I don't think we should be releasing crippled software to work around 
> Microsoft bugs that have Microsoft supported fixes, people should 
> rather apply the fix.

As I said, I don't care if a particular feature of APR (in this case, 
LDAP support) isn't available on older systems. But I find it 
unacceptable that apps linked with APR won't even start on those 
systems, even if they don't use the unsupported features.

> If it's impractical, we can always release a "cut down" version of APR 
> for the benefit of older platforms, marking it clearly as a version 
> supporting the older platforms only.

That would push an IMHO unacceptable packaging burden on dependent 
projects. There's a perfectly good alternative that's used elswhere in 
APR, that is, dynamic binding to OS APIs.

If people feel this is too marginal an issue, then I'd like to see a 
note on apr.apache.org about which versions of which OS APR actually 
supports.

-- Brane

Re: svn commit: r265755 - in /apr/apr-util/trunk/ldap: apr_ldap_init.c apr_ldap_option.c

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

Branko Čibej wrote:

> I wish that were true. People use Subversion (client-only, of course) on 
> Win98. I could hardly believe it myself, but it's a fact.

Enough people to make it worth worrying about?

I don't think we should be releasing crippled software to work around 
Microsoft bugs that have Microsoft supported fixes, people should rather 
apply the fix.

If it's impractical, we can always release a "cut down" version of APR 
for the benefit of older platforms, marking it clearly as a version 
supporting the older platforms only.

Regards,
Graham
--

Re: svn commit: r265755 - in /apr/apr-util/trunk/ldap: apr_ldap_init.c apr_ldap_option.c

[Branko Čibej <br...@xbc.nu>]

Roy T. Fielding wrote:

> On Sep 2, 2005, at 8:30 PM, Branko Čibej wrote:
>
>> Roy T. Fielding wrote:
>>
>>> We have no need to support anything other than the latest updates
>>> of Win2k and WinXP.  Anything other than that should not be running
>>> a server and can continue using our old builds if needed.
>>
>>
>> *Sigh*, yes, fine, but APR is used by stuff other than httpd, some of 
>> which aren't servers. Subversion's one of them. It doesn't use ldap, 
>> but does use apr_util.
>
> Subversion doesn't need to support anything other than the latest
> updates of Win2k and WinXP for the Microsoft platform.  Masochistic
> developers don't use subversion.

I wish that were true. People use Subversion (client-only, of course) on 
Win98. I could hardly believe it myself, but it's a fact.

-- Brane

Re: svn commit: r265755 - in /apr/apr-util/trunk/ldap: apr_ldap_init.c apr_ldap_option.c

["Roy T. Fielding" <fi...@gbiv.com>]

On Sep 2, 2005, at 8:30 PM, Branko Čibej wrote:
> Roy T. Fielding wrote:
>
>> We have no need to support anything other than the latest updates
>> of Win2k and WinXP.  Anything other than that should not be running
>> a server and can continue using our old builds if needed.
>
> *Sigh*, yes, fine, but APR is used by stuff other than httpd, some of 
> which aren't servers. Subversion's one of them. It doesn't use ldap, 
> but does use apr_util.

Subversion doesn't need to support anything other than the latest
updates of Win2k and WinXP for the Microsoft platform.  Masochistic
developers don't use subversion.

> If the goal of this project is to produce a portable runtime, then it 
> has to run on less-than-bleeding-edge machines (even if some features 
> aren't available). If, OTOH, the goal is a portable runtime for httpd, 
> then perhaps Subversion should reconsider its use of APR...
>
> (No, I don't think having different flavours of the APR DLLs for 
> different versions of Windows is acceptable.)

The goal of this project is to release software that works on as
many platforms as possible.  The impossible platforms can go to hell.
If you can produce a build that works on older platforms, great,
but the other projects cannot wait just because we can't maintain
ABI across the last 10 years of third-party DLLs.  Find something
we can maintain across the next 10 years and stick with that instead.

....Roy

Re: svn commit: r265755 - in /apr/apr-util/trunk/ldap: apr_ldap_init.c apr_ldap_option.c

[Branko Čibej <br...@xbc.nu>]

Roy T. Fielding wrote:

> We have no need to support anything other than the latest updates
> of Win2k and WinXP.  Anything other than that should not be running
> a server and can continue using our old builds if needed.

*Sigh*, yes, fine, but APR is used by stuff other than httpd, some of 
which aren't servers. Subversion's one of them. It doesn't use ldap, but 
does use apr_util.

If the goal of this project is to produce a portable runtime, then it 
has to run on less-than-bleeding-edge machines (even if some features 
aren't available). If, OTOH, the goal is a portable runtime for httpd, 
then perhaps Subversion should reconsider its use of APR...

(No, I don't think having different flavours of the APR DLLs for 
different versions of Windows is acceptable.)

-- Brane