On Mon, Dec 14, 2009 at 6:04 PM, William A. Rowe Jr. <[email protected]> wrote: > Looks like apr has enough votes, with mine after I do the last of > the verifications tonight [and fix the broken test, which shouldn't > block the release]. > > About apr-util compat, I'm only voting/vetoing around user-expectations, > not developer expectations. Paul and I agree that we shouldn't be working > to accommodate a *developer* who programs against an API that shipped by > httpd labeled '-alpha'. It wasn't an apr-util release, they shouldn't > have any such expectations. > > We ought to anticipate the *user* who has either 1) built packages against > apr-util-1.4.x and then installs this httpd package apr-util-1.4.0-dev, > and *silently* breaks their apps built against 1.4.x (I don't care if they > get an emit that apr_foo can't be found because they overwrote a good > apr-util release with an httpd package), or who has 2) built packages that > compile successfully against apr-util-1.4.0-dev from their httpd install, > but actually target apr-util-1.4.x, and they return to update their > apr-util-1.4.0-dev with apr-util-1.4.x, *silently* breaking their packages.
its an alpha release with a -dev copy of APR and APR-Util. Frankly, Screw the user, because there aren't any. If someone bitches about an alpha release breaking thier shit, tough shit, its alpha. -Paul
