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 Rüdiger
