Roy T. Fielding wrote:
On Nov 30, 2005, at 10:12 PM, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
So we've been compiling and improving the code, but the build/ install
status
is -worse- than httpd-2.0, ergo this is not "the best version of
apache now
available" and is -not- ready for GA.
I just built from scratch using the tarball and the same options
that any typical user would set: i.e.,
./configure --prefix=/dist/test22 --enable-modules=all
Zero problems.
Ok, but did you try installing into a tree that has, say, a fink port of
svn based on apr 1.0 or 1.1? We are (mostly) talking about where httpd
is finding stale APR versions related to non-httpd packages. (Non-httpd,
because httpd never has shipped anything but alphas based on 1.0 or 1.1.)
I don't understand what you are talking about -- developers don't
run ./buildconf on the source package. Only we do that.
Ack, as I suggested, let's kill it in the source distro.
again I have zero problems. The included versions of apr and apr-util
are used in all of my tests. I've never installed apr-1.x in the OS
system libraries. Why would anyone outside this list do that?
That's my -main- worry, those that didn't intend/deliberately install apr
at all, but picked up 1.0/1.1 from another package such as subversion.
Bill
