Rainer Jung wrote:
> On 15.02.2013 18:21, Rainer Jung wrote:
>> On 15.02.2013 17:55, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
>>> I guess the other question is whether 2.2.24 should be tagged with the
>>> original apr-util 1.3 family, or whether we should pick up 1.5.1?  And
>>> back to the older 2.2.23 sources, should it be the then-current apr-util
>>> that was bundled in the .tar.gz distribution?
>>
>> APR and APU are not part of the svn tag, are they?
>>
>> It looks like 2.2.23 was rolled with APR 1.4.6 and APU 1.4.1 in the
>> tarballs, the current versions at that time. I'd say there's no reason
>> not to proceed like that, ie. using 1.4.6/1.5.1 for 2.2.24 source
>> tarballs and binaries.
> 
> I guess with the 2.2.23 question you meant what to include in a 2.2.23
> build done right now? Since we plan to have 2.2.24 soon (and I guess you
> are going to provide Windows binaries for 23 and 24), I'd say 2.2.23 is
> mostly interesting in case someone experiences an unexpected
> compatibility problem. In this case it would be saner to build 2.2.23
> binaries using the original APR/APU versions 1.4.6/1.4.1. Anyone looking
> for the latest and greatest would switch to 2.2.24 including 1.4.6/1.5.1.

IMHO the previous procedure was to keep major.minor stable for APR / APR-UTIL
in the supplied tar ball and only increase to the latest patch level of that 
major.minor.
Only exception was if httpd needed new features from APR / APR-UTIL major.minor 
(keeping major
stable at all times of course and only increase minor) which was also an 
indication to the users
that they need to use a new major.minor version.
Or do we decouple the APR / APR-UTIL version we put in the tar ball from the 
minimum version detection
for APR / APR-UTIL in the httpd autoconf part?

Regards

RĂ¼diger


Reply via email to