RE: Q1: Rollup Release Format

[MATHIHALLI,MADHUSUDAN (HP-Cupertino,ex1)]

Option B seems to be reasonable to me..
- apache-lite     - containing httpd-2.0, apr, apr-util and 
- apache-complete - containing lite(?) + http-proxy + http-ldap

Thanks
-Madhu

-----Original Message-----
From: William A. Rowe, Jr. [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday, September 18, 2001 6:50 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Cliff Woolley
Subject: Re: Q1: Rollup Release Format


I'm sorry - I've transformed the entire schema.

Yes, I'm +1 for the 'real' option A.

My concerns about it remain - folks will download the 'lite' core version,
only
to turn around and download the 'full' version.

And yes, something like httpd-complete would be a very nice name.

Bill

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "William A. Rowe, Jr." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Cliff Woolley"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, September 18, 2001 8:28 PM
Subject: Re: Q1: Rollup Release Format


> 
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Ryan Bloom" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Cliff Woolley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Tuesday, September 18, 2001 6:43 PM
> Subject: Re: Q1: Rollup Release Format
> 
> 
> > On Tuesday 18 September 2001 04:35 pm, Cliff Woolley wrote:
> > > On Tue, 18 Sep 2001, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
> > > > > o Option A: apache-2.x.x.tar.gz
> > > > >
> > > > >   Combines httpd-2.0, apr, apr-util, httpd-proxy and
> > > > >   httpd-ldap and produces an apache rollup tree.
> > > >
> > > > +1 on Option A.  I think that anything else is going to be too
> > > > confusing for end users.
> 
> +1 on Option A.
> 
> > > I also prefer option A.  My only question is do we really want to
start
> > > making a distinction between "apache" and "httpd"?  I don't think we
do.
> > > How about apache-bundle-2.x.x.tar.gz ?
> >
> > Regardless of how we do the roll-up, nont of our builds should have the
> > word Apache in them.  The httpd project is the httpd project.  If we use
the
> > word Apache, then we are co-opting the Foundation's name, instead of
> > the project name.
> 
> _IF_ we adopted option B, it should be httpd-bundle-x.x.x, but it appears
the
> people lean for option A.  In that case, it should be httpd-core-x.x.x and
> httpd-extra-x.x.x  (httpd-modules sounds like we don't include a -single- 
> module with httpd-core.  httpd-complete or the like sounds like they get
the
> whole package, or back to option B.)
> 
> In any case, I'm against B for a simple reason.  Many folks will grab the
core
> sources tarball, turn around, and grab the 'full' tarball.  What a waste
of
> our servers' bandwidth.
> 
> Bill
> 
> 
> 
>