Colm MacCarthaigh wrote:
If apr 1.0 or 1.1 happen to be installed, I don't see why it's not
reasonable to fail to configure. The administrator may intend to link
against the system version, they may not want httpd having its own
libapr. And they're the only people capable of making that decision and
hence resolving the conflict. They can decide to install over their
existing apr, or to install a new one just for httpd.
I brought this exact issue up weeks ago, and it didn't go very far. I
was originally -1, for the very same reasons you are, but having thought
about it decided that yes, while the present system introduces some
inconvienence for a small fraction of users, it doesn't try to second
guess them either, and unbundling apr/apr-util would represent a huge
inconvienence to a large fraction of users.
I read this a bit backwards of your interpretation;
* admins who install 1.1 for some specific reason are responsible to
ensure they deal with the new package correctly (e.g., we give them
a message upon configure "Found old APR 1.1.0, installing APR 1.2.2
for you" and let them decide what to do. 99% of the time, they must
follow our advise and install 1.2.2 in the same prefix/ as httpd.)
* the vast majority of users, who only have apr 1.0/1.1 due to svn or
other intrapackage dependencies, get a free apr 1.2 without having
to think about it. Make this whole headache a noop for them.
And I for one don't want the headaches of the users@ trouble reports. I'd
really prefer to see those who help out on users@ answering this objection,
as opposed to the hackers who are detached from the user community pushing
this out +1 over those user-supporters objections.
Bill
