At 07:01 PM 8/2/2002, Ian Holsman wrote: >William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote: >>At 03:32 PM 8/1/2002, Ryan Bloom wrote: >>> > From: William A. Rowe, Jr. [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] >>> > At 11:42 AM 8/1/2002, you wrote: >>> > >ianh 2002/08/01 09:42:33 >>> > > >>> > > we need apr-iconv now >>> > >>> > Even if we don't build it, this is extremely good practice that the folks >>> > rolling and releasing the tarball TAG the apr-iconv tree in sync with >>> > the current apr and apr-util trees.. >>> >>>I completely disagree. The problem is that the httpd_roll_release >>>script is for rolling httpd releases, not APR releases. This change >>>doesn't help people realize that they have to tag APR-iconv before they >>>can release httpd. >> >>Of course it is bad. That's why I suggest a separate tarball for iconv. >>But it doesn't matter, we need trees in-sync, so apr-iconv must be tagged >>with apr's tags, from here forwards. If you want to do that as an rtag, >>that would be fine too. > >ok.. so.. i'm not sure if this has been resolved. >should we include the apr-iconv is the source distribution tarball, >or only have it in the win32 zipfile. my personal opinion is that is >should be in both, as some win32 users will just download the tarball and >this would be confusing.
Win32 users that grab the tarball do so at their own peril anyways [you cannot plug in lf-lineended files into microsoft's vc tools or ide.] This should be a separate tarball for those interested in it for any non-Unix platform anyways. I promised my weekend to straighten out iconv/openssl/zlib/ldap dependencies on win32. It will be a hack, but we won't require iconv. And we still need to tag the puppy every time around, until [as rbb points out] we use specific version tags of APR rather than an HTTPD tag. Bill
