On Dec 14, 2009 9:04pm, "William A. Rowe Jr." <[email protected]> wrote:
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.
The previous paragraph acknowledges that we aren't worried if somebody codes against in-flux APIs in that apr-util packaged with httpd 2.3.4. What is the problem scenario here? How can the exchange of apr-util-1.4.0-dev with apr-util 1.4.1 hurt unless the user has some code that relies on in-flux APIs?
