Guenter Knauf wrote: > Hi, >> On 5/9/07, Guenter Knauf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> Apache 2.0.x -> has to use APR 0.9.x >>> Apache 2.2.x -> has to use APR 1.2.x >>> Apache 2.3.x -> has to use APR 1.3.x >>> >>> is this now a mandatory relationship, or is it valid to: >>> >>> build Apache 2.2.x with APR 1.3.x > >> This would likely work, but I wouldn't recommend it for official >> builds. You wouldn't want module authors to start depending on new >> functionality in APR 1.3.x when most versions of Apache 2.2.x don't >> have that.
Well, feel free to yourself. I don't get around to testing APR 1.2 until late in the ready-to-tag-and-roll phase of things, I like my APR 1.3 :) That said, don't use APR 1.3 features. And the binaries then REQUIRE APR 1.3 to be installed because we do sinister things such as glob all apr exported symbols (yuck). So don't package with 1.3 >>> build Apache 2.3.x with APR 1.2.x > >> That /might/ work, unless Apache is depending on new functionality in >> APR 1.3.x, which it very well might be. One of those "YMMV, if it >> breaks you get to keep both pieces" kind of situations. > > ok, that's exactly what I thought too - thanks for confirming.... Take this a step further, anyone's free to start picking up APR 1.3 features on trunk, it's an open ended development cycle. Don't be surprised if apr 1.3 does become required. > So how about the future? Will this relationship continue? > Means will we ship Apache 2.4.x with APR 1.4.x? and will APRUTIL also keep in > sync with APR version? > If so that would make a check easier since then I only would have to check if > the minor release numbers of httpd, apr, and apr-util are all equal, and bail > out if one of apr / apr-util is less than the httpd one, and warn if one of > apr / apr-util is higher...(or even bail out there too). Not likely, APR 1.3 will probably be all the features we can add before the list surrenders and dumps all the deprecated interfaces. So the "Next httpd" is likely to demand either apr 1.3, or apr 2.0. If you stay on apr trunk you are fine for now.
