> Oden Eriksson wrote:
> >
> > And some investigations told me it requires apr 0.9.7, maybe the autotools
> > stuff should check for this or be documented?
>
> Yup - apr 0.9.7 is part of the bundle. We can spell this out in the
> announce, certainly, and on the downloads page README - would that
> suffice?
>
There seems to be a bug in the httpd.spec file.
It says:
Requires: apr >= 0.9.5, apr-util 0.9.5
and the devel packages (on the httpd package specs) have no version
number:
BuildPrereq: apr-devel, apr-util-devel
Also, the changelog section in the spec file does not show the upping
to 2.0.55. The last documented chenge is for 2.0.53. And it says:
"changed build to use external apr and apr-util".
This confuses me, since apr seems to be present in the 2.0.53 and
2.0.55 tarballs ...
Sure enough, 2.0.55 compiles just fine using my old spec file (derived
from an old RedHat httpd 2.0.44 spec file). The resulting httpd rpm
package does contain libapr and libaprutil 0.9.7.
However, with the spec file from the tarball (with the apr
BuildPrereq's commented out to get it to confgure/make), I get compile
errors.
I plead guilty to not having followed the apr-related threads, but I'd
expect the RPM spec file to keep me out of trouble with any deps. IMHO,
it should rpmbuild right out of the box.
If somebody can get me updated on the status of apr (version, bundled
or not) and on what the spec file is trying to accomplish (e.g. separate
apr packages), I'd probably be able to fix it myself.
Luc Pardon
Skopos Consulting
Belgium
