On Tue, Jul 2, 2013 at 8:53 AM, MikeM <michaelm12-asfbugzi...@aquaorange.net > wrote:
> Hi, > > Maybe the simple option is to do the final release with the old/existing > bundled APR, but put a foot note in the release notes that the newer APR > v1.4.8/1.5.2 has been confirmed to successfully work with 2.0.65. This way > it may give confidence to anyone who is stuck on 2.0.x for some reason to > use the newer APR/APR-util if needs be. > APR/APR-util 1.x won't work with httpd 2.0.x. Someone continuing to use 2.0.x will need to hand-pick or backport fixes from apr/apr-util 0.9.x or later levels. But then they'll have to backport fixes from httpd too. The line was drawn at slightly different places for httpd vs. apr/apr-util, but the long term picture is the same: There is effort to remain on httpd 2.0.x if you want to pick up any code fixes, and the recommendation is clear. > Regards, > Mike > > > On 02/07/2013 13:06, Guenter Knauf wrote: > >> Hi Bill, >> On 02.07.2013 01:47, wr...@rowe-clan.net wrote: >> >>> I am not at all concerned >>> whether APR 0.9 is >>> released again or not since folks had years to take that up in our >>> discussions of >>> putting httpd 2.0 to bed, yet nobody so much as suggested a release, >>> nevermind some >>> volunteer to act on it. >>> >> true; but I thought that most of us probably forgot about that we bundle >> APR/APU with 2.0.x - like I did; the lack of APR/APU fixes came only to my >> attention when I was on building the 2.0.65 binaries ... >> but since nobody else expressed an oppinion about then thats fine, and I >> shut up. >> >> or if you have concurred with the group consensus to let this story end >>> as of Jun 2013. >>> >> I have. Just did put the NetWare bins up; go ahead and release. >> >> Gün. >> >> >> >> > -- Born in Roswell... married an alien... http://emptyhammock.com/
