On Tue, Dec 15, 2009 at 12:59 PM, Branko Čibej <[email protected]> wrote: > I'm not going to cast a vote here because I think the vote is a) > premature, b) not carried out in the proper forum. > > If we assume that any part of APR that's bundled with httpd does not > constitute an APR release -- and note that we're talking about related > projects within the ASF, not some random pair of projects -- then httpd > has no business bundling unreleased APR bits in its release tarballs, > but should only used released APR versions and/or point at existing APR > tarballs. > > I completely agree with Bill that it's entirely irrelevant whether a > release is named alpha or don't-touch or whatever; if it's in /dist, > it's a release. The only question is if it's also a release of APR or not. > > Bill's concerns about not intercoursing users by breaking a released ABI > are valid. > Everybody else's responses that "it's an alpha" are ... at this time > indeterminate, and IMNSHO not subject to politics (i.e., voting) but to > technical arguments. "It's just a few users" is not a technical > argument, I think you'll all agree. > > Specifically: if I build and install the APR from that bespoke httpd > tarball, what does apr-1-config --version say? > > * If the answer is 1.4.0, the user will believe they just installed > an APR release. > * If the answer is 1.4.0-dev, then it's clearly a development > snapshot and all bets are off.
Exactly! from the dev snapshot version bundled with httpd 2.3.4-alpha: #define APR_MAJOR_VERSION 1 #define APR_MINOR_VERSION 4 #define APR_PATCH_VERSION 0 #define APR_IS_DEV_VERSION
