Paul Querna wrote: > > I am trying to parse what you mean by this vote Bill. > > The vote is on all of the source release, including the -deps > tarballs. For the terms of the vote, I will interpret this as a -1 on > the entire release.
That's fine. I interpret 'our release' as httpd. If httpd is ready, it should keep moving, and the -deps package, while nice for GA, really isn't necessary for alphas IMHO. > I agree, the root of the problem is the APR project, and they should > do a release when they see fit. Agreed. And that falls on you or I also, of course. Expecting that we can agree to a release this week, sorry that overwork and lack of vision contributed to my dropping the ball on releasing apr-1.4 (not apr-util-1.4 where many 'questionable additions' reside). > I don't agree that we can't release a bundled unreleased version of > APR, we did this for many versions of httpd 2.0.x and 2.1.x. It > definitely isn't preferred, but that's the APR project's problem. And we voted on that and released it. After about a year of that chaos it evolved to apr releasing their own releases. That's bootstrapping. It was part of the same package. You've split this into two packages, so I truly can't discern your argument that '-deps' is mandatory for httpd to even ship. Finally, I have yet to see any feedback on the pcre mandatory dependency issue. Comments?
