Login | Register For Free | Help
Search for: (Advanced)

Mailing List Archive: Apache: Dev

[VOTE] Bundle apr/apu with 2.4.x

 

 

First page Previous page 1 2 Next page Last page  View All Apache dev RSS feed   Index | Next | Previous | View Threaded


jim at jaguNET

Feb 2, 2012, 6:54 AM

Post #1 of 30 (1799 views)
Permalink
[VOTE] Bundle apr/apu with 2.4.x

I'm calling a vote to get consensus on whether we should continue
to bundle apr/apu with httpd 2.4.x.

The proposal is that at the time we T&R 2.4.x, we also "bundle"
that latest, released versions of apr/apu "with" the httpd tarball.
How we bundle it (eg: sep tarball or have it part of the httpd tarball
ala 2.2.x) and what we call it are *not* part of the vote, the
idea being that if we do wish to bundle it, we can decide the
"best" way to do so. If we don't wish to bundle, the issue is moot.

Let's give it the normal 72 hours:

[ ] +1: Bundle apr/apu w/ Apache httpd 2.4.x
[ ] +0: I don't care
[ ] -1: Do not bundle apr/apu with Apache httpd 2.4.x

Cheers!


ruediger.pluem at vodafone

Feb 2, 2012, 7:13 AM

Post #2 of 30 (1765 views)
Permalink
RE: [VOTE] Bundle apr/apu with 2.4.x [In reply to]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jim Jagielski [mailto:jim [at] jaguNET]
> Sent: Donnerstag, 2. Februar 2012 15:54
> To: dev [at] httpd
> Subject: [VOTE] Bundle apr/apu with 2.4.x
>
> I'm calling a vote to get consensus on whether we should continue
> to bundle apr/apu with httpd 2.4.x.
>
> The proposal is that at the time we T&R 2.4.x, we also "bundle"
> that latest, released versions of apr/apu "with" the httpd tarball.
> How we bundle it (eg: sep tarball or have it part of the httpd tarball
> ala 2.2.x) and what we call it are *not* part of the vote, the
> idea being that if we do wish to bundle it, we can decide the
> "best" way to do so. If we don't wish to bundle, the issue is moot.
>
> Let's give it the normal 72 hours:
>
> [X] +1: Bundle apr/apu w/ Apache httpd 2.4.x
> [ ] +0: I don't care
> [ ] -1: Do not bundle apr/apu with Apache httpd 2.4.x
>
> Cheers!

Regards

Rüdiger


wrowe at rowe-clan

Feb 2, 2012, 7:19 AM

Post #3 of 30 (1761 views)
Permalink
Re: [VOTE] Bundle apr/apu with 2.4.x [In reply to]

On 2/2/2012 8:54 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
>
> Let's give it the normal 72 hours:
>
> [ ] +1: Bundle apr/apu w/ Apache httpd 2.4.x
> [ ] +0: I don't care
> [X] -1: Do not bundle apr/apu with Apache httpd 2.4.x


fuankg at apache

Feb 2, 2012, 7:30 AM

Post #4 of 30 (1780 views)
Permalink
Re: [VOTE] Bundle apr/apu with 2.4.x [In reply to]

Am 02.02.2012 15:54, schrieb Jim Jagielski:
> I'm calling a vote to get consensus on whether we should continue
> to bundle apr/apu with httpd 2.4.x.
>
> The proposal is that at the time we T&R 2.4.x, we also "bundle"
> that latest, released versions of apr/apu "with" the httpd tarball.
> How we bundle it (eg: sep tarball or have it part of the httpd tarball
> ala 2.2.x) and what we call it are *not* part of the vote, the
> idea being that if we do wish to bundle it, we can decide the
> "best" way to do so. If we don't wish to bundle, the issue is moot.
>
> Let's give it the normal 72 hours:
>
> [x] +1: Bundle apr/apu w/ Apache httpd 2.4.x
> [ ] +0: I don't care
> [ ] -1: Do not bundle apr/apu with Apache httpd 2.4.x

Gün.


minfrin at sharp

Feb 2, 2012, 7:34 AM

Post #5 of 30 (1770 views)
Permalink
Re: [VOTE] Bundle apr/apu with 2.4.x [In reply to]

On 02 Feb 2012, at 4:54 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote:

> I'm calling a vote to get consensus on whether we should continue
> to bundle apr/apu with httpd 2.4.x.
>
> The proposal is that at the time we T&R 2.4.x, we also "bundle"
> that latest, released versions of apr/apu "with" the httpd tarball.
> How we bundle it (eg: sep tarball or have it part of the httpd tarball
> ala 2.2.x) and what we call it are *not* part of the vote, the
> idea being that if we do wish to bundle it, we can decide the
> "best" way to do so. If we don't wish to bundle, the issue is moot.
>
> Let's give it the normal 72 hours:
>
> [ ] +1: Bundle apr/apu w/ Apache httpd 2.4.x
> [ ] +0: I don't care
> [X] -1: Do not bundle apr/apu with Apache httpd 2.4.x

To be most specific, do what we're doing now. (ie separate -deps).

APR and APR-Util are standalone projects that are stable and mature, and people should be installing those independently from httpd these days.

Regards,
Graham
--
Attachments: smime.p7s (4.26 KB)


jim at jaguNET

Feb 2, 2012, 7:35 AM

Post #6 of 30 (1767 views)
Permalink
Re: [VOTE] Bundle apr/apu with 2.4.x [In reply to]

On Feb 2, 2012, at 9:54 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
> [X] +1: Bundle apr/apu w/ Apache httpd 2.4.x
> [ ] +0: I don't care
> [ ] -1: Do not bundle apr/apu with Apache httpd 2.4.x


nick at webthing

Feb 2, 2012, 9:01 AM

Post #7 of 30 (1747 views)
Permalink
Re: [VOTE] Bundle apr/apu with 2.4.x [In reply to]

On Thu, 2 Feb 2012 09:54:02 -0500
Jim Jagielski <jim [at] jaguNET> wrote:


> [*] -1: Do not bundle apr/apu with Apache httpd 2.4.x
>
> Cheers!

Those users who might have difficulty with an unbundled package
aren't likely to be installing from our tarballs. That's what
downstream packagers are for.

--
Nick Kew


wrowe at rowe-clan

Feb 2, 2012, 9:07 AM

Post #8 of 30 (1753 views)
Permalink
Re: [VOTE] Bundle apr/apu with 2.4.x [In reply to]

On 2/2/2012 9:34 AM, Graham Leggett wrote:
>>
>> [ ] +1: Bundle apr/apu w/ Apache httpd 2.4.x
>> [ ] +0: I don't care
>> [X] -1: Do not bundle apr/apu with Apache httpd 2.4.x
>
> To be most specific, do what we're doing now. (ie separate -deps).

Graham, I believe you need to recast your vote. Jim specifically pointed
out "how" wasn't the subject of the vote. Providing /any/ apr packages
is the subject of this vote, and the how (combined, separate, named -deps
or named -required-apr-additional-packages) would be determined next :)


jim at jaguNET

Feb 2, 2012, 10:20 AM

Post #9 of 30 (1759 views)
Permalink
Re: [VOTE] Bundle apr/apu with 2.4.x [In reply to]

On Feb 2, 2012, at 10:34 AM, Graham Leggett wrote:

> On 02 Feb 2012, at 4:54 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
>
>> I'm calling a vote to get consensus on whether we should continue
>> to bundle apr/apu with httpd 2.4.x.
>>
>> The proposal is that at the time we T&R 2.4.x, we also "bundle"
>> that latest, released versions of apr/apu "with" the httpd tarball.
>> How we bundle it (eg: sep tarball or have it part of the httpd tarball
>> ala 2.2.x) and what we call it are *not* part of the vote, the
>> idea being that if we do wish to bundle it, we can decide the
>> "best" way to do so. If we don't wish to bundle, the issue is moot.
>>
>> Let's give it the normal 72 hours:
>>
>> [ ] +1: Bundle apr/apu w/ Apache httpd 2.4.x
>> [ ] +0: I don't care
>> [X] -1: Do not bundle apr/apu with Apache httpd 2.4.x
>
> To be most specific, do what we're doing now. (ie separate -deps).
>

Doing what we're doing now would be:

[X] +1: Bundle apr/apu w/ Apache httpd 2.4.x

Can you confirm that's how you'd vote?


gstein at gmail

Feb 2, 2012, 10:46 AM

Post #10 of 30 (1759 views)
Permalink
Re: [VOTE] Bundle apr/apu with 2.4.x [In reply to]

On Feb 2, 2012 12:01 PM, "Nick Kew" <nick [at] webthing> wrote:
>
> On Thu, 2 Feb 2012 09:54:02 -0500
> Jim Jagielski <jim [at] jaguNET> wrote:
>
>
> > [*] -1: Do not bundle apr/apu with Apache httpd 2.4.x
> >
> > Cheers!
>
> Those users who might have difficulty with an unbundled package
> aren't likely to be installing from our tarballs. That's what
> downstream packagers are for.

Agreed.

-1


rainer.jung at kippdata

Feb 2, 2012, 2:18 PM

Post #11 of 30 (1747 views)
Permalink
Re: [VOTE] Bundle apr/apu with 2.4.x [In reply to]

On 02.02.2012 15:54, Jim Jagielski wrote:
> I'm calling a vote to get consensus on whether we should continue
> to bundle apr/apu with httpd 2.4.x.
>
> The proposal is that at the time we T&R 2.4.x, we also "bundle"
> that latest, released versions of apr/apu "with" the httpd tarball.
> How we bundle it (eg: sep tarball or have it part of the httpd tarball
> ala 2.2.x) and what we call it are *not* part of the vote, the
> idea being that if we do wish to bundle it, we can decide the
> "best" way to do so. If we don't wish to bundle, the issue is moot.
>
> Let's give it the normal 72 hours:
>
> [X] +1: Bundle apr/apu w/ Apache httpd 2.4.x
> [ ] +0: I don't care
> [ ] -1: Do not bundle apr/apu with Apache httpd 2.4.x

Hmmm, no clear consensus until now.

Regards,

Rainer


wrowe at rowe-clan

Feb 2, 2012, 2:48 PM

Post #12 of 30 (1739 views)
Permalink
Re: [VOTE] Bundle apr/apu with 2.4.x [In reply to]

On 2/2/2012 4:18 PM, Rainer Jung wrote:
>
> Hmmm, no clear consensus until now.

Consensus? Looks pretty split so far :) Or do you mean you had
no clear opinion until now?


noel.butler at ausics

Feb 2, 2012, 6:09 PM

Post #13 of 30 (1745 views)
Permalink
Re: [VOTE] Bundle apr/apu with 2.4.x [In reply to]

On Thu, 2012-02-02 at 09:54 -0500, Jim Jagielski wrote:


>
> [X] +1: Bundle apr/apu w/ Apache httpd 2.4.x
> [ ] +0: I don't care
> [ ] -1: Do not bundle apr/apu with Apache httpd 2.4.x
>
Attachments: signature.asc (0.48 KB)


rainer.jung at kippdata

Feb 2, 2012, 11:06 PM

Post #14 of 30 (1734 views)
Permalink
Re: [VOTE] Bundle apr/apu with 2.4.x [In reply to]

On 02.02.2012 23:48, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
> On 2/2/2012 4:18 PM, Rainer Jung wrote:
>>
>> Hmmm, no clear consensus until now.
>
> Consensus? Looks pretty split so far :) Or do you mean you had
> no clear opinion until now?

Did I say "no consensus"? I do have a clear opinion as everyone else
seems to have (noone voted +0 until now).

Rainer


jblond at gmail

Feb 3, 2012, 2:43 AM

Post #15 of 30 (1738 views)
Permalink
Re: [VOTE] Bundle apr/apu with 2.4.x [In reply to]

 [x] +1: Bundle apr/apu w/ Apache httpd 2.4.x
 [ ] +0: I don't care
 [ ] -1: Do not bundle apr/apu with Apache httpd 2.4.x


minfrin at sharp

Feb 3, 2012, 5:15 AM

Post #16 of 30 (1750 views)
Permalink
Re: [VOTE] Bundle apr/apu with 2.4.x [In reply to]

On 02 Feb 2012, at 8:20 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote:

>>> [ ] +1: Bundle apr/apu w/ Apache httpd 2.4.x
>>> [ ] +0: I don't care
>>> [X] -1: Do not bundle apr/apu with Apache httpd 2.4.x
>>
>> To be most specific, do what we're doing now. (ie separate -deps).
>>
>
> Doing what we're doing now would be:
>
> [X] +1: Bundle apr/apu w/ Apache httpd 2.4.x
>
> Can you confirm that's how you'd vote?


Ah, I interpreted it is a return to including it in the tarball.

In that case, I move off the fence and still say "Do not bundle". Either way, to build httpd you need APR to be present, which in turn means you need to download it separately, and it's far safer to download it from apr.apache.org than a copy from httpd.apache.org.

Regards,
Graham
--
Attachments: smime.p7s (4.26 KB)


sf at sfritsch

Feb 3, 2012, 11:55 AM

Post #17 of 30 (1737 views)
Permalink
Re: [VOTE] Bundle apr/apu with 2.4.x [In reply to]

On Thursday 02 February 2012, Jim Jagielski wrote:
> [ ] +1: Bundle apr/apu w/ Apache httpd 2.4.x
> [ ] +0: I don't care
> [X] -1: Do not bundle apr/apu with Apache httpd 2.4.x

Provided that the --with-included-apr mechanism stays and the docs say
"download apr-x.y.tar.gz and extract to srclib/apr, download apr-util-
y.z.tar.gz and extract to srclib/apr-util". I don't think that this
would be a significant problem for users.

Having to do the full configure/make/make install dance would be a
different issue.


httpd-dev.2012 at velox

Feb 4, 2012, 12:07 AM

Post #18 of 30 (1755 views)
Permalink
Re: [VOTE] Bundle apr/apu with 2.4.x [In reply to]

On 03.02.2012 20:55, Stefan Fritsch wrote:
> On Thursday 02 February 2012, Jim Jagielski wrote:
>> [ ] +1: Bundle apr/apu w/ Apache httpd 2.4.x
>> [ ] +0: I don't care
>> [X] -1: Do not bundle apr/apu with Apache httpd 2.4.x
>
> Provided that the --with-included-apr mechanism stays and the docs say
> "download apr-x.y.tar.gz and extract to srclib/apr, download apr-util-
> y.z.tar.gz and extract to srclib/apr-util". I don't think that this
> would be a significant problem for users.
>
> Having to do the full configure/make/make install dance would be a
> different issue.

+1

Kaspar


wrowe at rowe-clan

Feb 4, 2012, 11:50 AM

Post #19 of 30 (1728 views)
Permalink
Re: [VOTE] Bundle apr/apu with 2.4.x [In reply to]

On 2/4/2012 2:07 AM, Kaspar Brand wrote:
> On 03.02.2012 20:55, Stefan Fritsch wrote:
>> On Thursday 02 February 2012, Jim Jagielski wrote:
>>> [ ] +1: Bundle apr/apu w/ Apache httpd 2.4.x
>>> [ ] +0: I don't care
>>> [X] -1: Do not bundle apr/apu with Apache httpd 2.4.x
>>
>> Provided that the --with-included-apr mechanism stays and the docs say
>> "download apr-x.y.tar.gz and extract to srclib/apr, download apr-util-
>> y.z.tar.gz and extract to srclib/apr-util". I don't think that this
>> would be a significant problem for users.
>>
>> Having to do the full configure/make/make install dance would be a
>> different issue.
>
> +1
>
> Kaspar

Kaspar, your vote is very confusing, either you agree with the sentiment
and therefore vote -1, or you entirely disagree with the sentiment and
are disputing it by voting +1.


httpd-dev.2012 at velox

Feb 5, 2012, 3:15 AM

Post #20 of 30 (1734 views)
Permalink
Re: [VOTE] Bundle apr/apu with 2.4.x [In reply to]

On 04.02.2012 20:50, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
> Kaspar, your vote is very confusing,

Sorry about that. Trying again - this is my vote:

> [ ] +1: Bundle apr/apu w/ Apache httpd 2.4.x
> [ ] +0: I don't care
> [X] -1: Do not bundle apr/apu with Apache httpd 2.4.x

as I agree with Stefan's arguments:

> Provided that the --with-included-apr mechanism stays and the docs say
> "download apr-x.y.tar.gz and extract to srclib/apr, download apr-util-
> y.z.tar.gz and extract to srclib/apr-util". I don't think that this
> would be a significant problem for users.
>
> Having to do the full configure/make/make install dance would be a
> different issue.

The only thing which is a bit unfortunate is the currrent naming of the
"--with-included-apr" configure option, IMO. What about changing that to:

--with-srclib-apr Use copies of APR/APR-Util in srclib directory

(and slightly adapt the wording introduced in r1232576)

Kaspar


wrowe at rowe-clan

Feb 5, 2012, 11:10 AM

Post #21 of 30 (1713 views)
Permalink
Re: [discuss] Bundle apr/apu with 2.4.x [In reply to]

On 2/5/2012 5:15 AM, Kaspar Brand wrote:
>
> The only thing which is a bit unfortunate is the currrent naming of the
> "--with-included-apr" configure option, IMO. What about changing that to:
>
> --with-srclib-apr Use copies of APR/APR-Util in srclib directory

How about

1. deprecating --with-included-apr syntax for...

2. --build-apr=/path syntax, default of '--build-apr=srcdir/apr' where
and when srclib/apr exists. If they would rather check out httpd, apr
and apr-util in parallel, it will be easy enough to choose something
like --build-apr=../apr-1.4.5


mads at toftum

Feb 5, 2012, 11:14 AM

Post #22 of 30 (1716 views)
Permalink
Re: [discuss] Bundle apr/apu with 2.4.x [In reply to]

On Sun, Feb 05, 2012 at 01:10:03PM -0600, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
> How about
>
> 1. deprecating --with-included-apr syntax for...
>
> 2. --build-apr=/path syntax, default of '--build-apr=srcdir/apr' where
> and when srclib/apr exists. If they would rather check out httpd, apr
> and apr-util in parallel, it will be easy enough to choose something
> like --build-apr=../apr-1.4.5

I like that idea. Makes more sense than --with-included-apr. For extra
bonus points make --with-included-apr throw an error suggesting the use
of --build-apr=srclib/apr

vh

Mads Toftum
--
http://soulfood.dk


wrowe at rowe-clan

Feb 5, 2012, 11:28 AM

Post #23 of 30 (1715 views)
Permalink
Re: [discuss] Bundle apr/apu with 2.4.x [In reply to]

On 2/5/2012 1:14 PM, Mads Toftum wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 05, 2012 at 01:10:03PM -0600, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
>> How about
>>
>> 1. deprecating --with-included-apr syntax for...
>>
>> 2. --build-apr=/path syntax, default of '--build-apr=srcdir/apr' where
>> and when srclib/apr exists. If they would rather check out httpd, apr
>> and apr-util in parallel, it will be easy enough to choose something
>> like --build-apr=../apr-1.4.5
>
> I like that idea. Makes more sense than --with-included-apr. For extra
> bonus points make --with-included-apr throw an error suggesting the use
> of --build-apr=srclib/apr

Since we are deprecating, throwing a warning and continuing on should
be sufficient ;)


jim at jaguNET

Feb 6, 2012, 6:04 AM

Post #24 of 30 (1703 views)
Permalink
Re: [discuss] Bundle apr/apu with 2.4.x [In reply to]

On Feb 5, 2012, at 2:10 PM, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
> How about
>
> 1. deprecating --with-included-apr syntax for...
>
> 2. --build-apr=/path syntax, default of '--build-apr=srcdir/apr' where
> and when srclib/apr exists. If they would rather check out httpd, apr
> and apr-util in parallel, it will be easy enough to choose something
> like --build-apr=../apr-1.4.5
>

++1... Great idea.


DRuggeri at primary

Feb 6, 2012, 3:19 PM

Post #25 of 30 (1696 views)
Permalink
Re: [discuss] Bundle apr/apu with 2.4.x [In reply to]

On 2/5/2012 1:10 PM, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
> How about
>
> 1. deprecating --with-included-apr syntax for...
>
> 2. --build-apr=/path syntax, default of '--build-apr=srcdir/apr' where
> and when srclib/apr exists. If they would rather check out httpd, apr
> and apr-util in parallel, it will be easy enough to choose something
> like --build-apr=../apr-1.4.5

Can we be sure that the configure script will continue to pass
parameters as it does today to these "sub" configure scripts, too? Also
(dare I ask), but where did we end up on the PCRE discussion?

--
Daniel Ruggeri

First page Previous page 1 2 Next page Last page  View All Apache dev RSS feed   Index | Next | Previous | View Threaded
 
 


Interested in having your list archived? Contact Gossamer Threads
 
  Web Applications & Managed Hosting Powered by Gossamer Threads Inc.