Re: [VOTE] Bundle apr/apu with 2.4.x
On 04.02.2012 20:50, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote: > Kaspar, your vote is very confusing, Sorry about that. Trying again - this is my vote: > [ ] +1: Bundle apr/apu w/ Apache httpd 2.4.x > [ ] +0: I don't care > [X] -1: Do not bundle apr/apu with Apache httpd 2.4.x as I agree with Stefan's arguments: > Provided that the --with-included-apr mechanism stays and the docs say > "download apr-x.y.tar.gz and extract to srclib/apr, download apr-util- > y.z.tar.gz and extract to srclib/apr-util". I don't think that this > would be a significant problem for users. > > Having to do the full configure/make/make install dance would be a > different issue. The only thing which is a bit unfortunate is the currrent naming of the "--with-included-apr" configure option, IMO. What about changing that to: --with-srclib-apr Use copies of APR/APR-Util in srclib directory (and slightly adapt the wording introduced in r1232576) Kaspar
Re: [VOTE] Bundle apr/apu with 2.4.x
On 2/4/2012 2:07 AM, Kaspar Brand wrote: > On 03.02.2012 20:55, Stefan Fritsch wrote: >> On Thursday 02 February 2012, Jim Jagielski wrote: >>> [ ] +1: Bundle apr/apu w/ Apache httpd 2.4.x >>> [ ] +0: I don't care >>> [X] -1: Do not bundle apr/apu with Apache httpd 2.4.x >> >> Provided that the --with-included-apr mechanism stays and the docs say >> "download apr-x.y.tar.gz and extract to srclib/apr, download apr-util- >> y.z.tar.gz and extract to srclib/apr-util". I don't think that this >> would be a significant problem for users. >> >> Having to do the full configure/make/make install dance would be a >> different issue. > > +1 > > Kaspar Kaspar, your vote is very confusing, either you agree with the sentiment and therefore vote -1, or you entirely disagree with the sentiment and are disputing it by voting +1.
Re: [VOTE] Bundle apr/apu with 2.4.x
On 03.02.2012 20:55, Stefan Fritsch wrote: > On Thursday 02 February 2012, Jim Jagielski wrote: >> [ ] +1: Bundle apr/apu w/ Apache httpd 2.4.x >> [ ] +0: I don't care >> [X] -1: Do not bundle apr/apu with Apache httpd 2.4.x > > Provided that the --with-included-apr mechanism stays and the docs say > "download apr-x.y.tar.gz and extract to srclib/apr, download apr-util- > y.z.tar.gz and extract to srclib/apr-util". I don't think that this > would be a significant problem for users. > > Having to do the full configure/make/make install dance would be a > different issue. +1 Kaspar
Re: [VOTE] Bundle apr/apu with 2.4.x
On Thursday 02 February 2012, Jim Jagielski wrote: > [ ] +1: Bundle apr/apu w/ Apache httpd 2.4.x > [ ] +0: I don't care > [X] -1: Do not bundle apr/apu with Apache httpd 2.4.x Provided that the --with-included-apr mechanism stays and the docs say "download apr-x.y.tar.gz and extract to srclib/apr, download apr-util- y.z.tar.gz and extract to srclib/apr-util". I don't think that this would be a significant problem for users. Having to do the full configure/make/make install dance would be a different issue.
Re: [VOTE] Bundle apr/apu with 2.4.x
On 02 Feb 2012, at 8:20 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote: >>> [ ] +1: Bundle apr/apu w/ Apache httpd 2.4.x >>> [ ] +0: I don't care >>> [X] -1: Do not bundle apr/apu with Apache httpd 2.4.x >> >> To be most specific, do what we're doing now. (ie separate -deps). >> > > Doing what we're doing now would be: > > [X] +1: Bundle apr/apu w/ Apache httpd 2.4.x > > Can you confirm that's how you'd vote? Ah, I interpreted it is a return to including it in the tarball. In that case, I move off the fence and still say "Do not bundle". Either way, to build httpd you need APR to be present, which in turn means you need to download it separately, and it's far safer to download it from apr.apache.org than a copy from httpd.apache.org. Regards, Graham -- smime.p7s Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
Re: [VOTE] Bundle apr/apu with 2.4.x
[x] +1: Bundle apr/apu w/ Apache httpd 2.4.x [ ] +0: I don't care [ ] -1: Do not bundle apr/apu with Apache httpd 2.4.x
Re: [VOTE] Bundle apr/apu with 2.4.x
On 02.02.2012 23:48, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote: On 2/2/2012 4:18 PM, Rainer Jung wrote: Hmmm, no clear consensus until now. Consensus? Looks pretty split so far :) Or do you mean you had no clear opinion until now? Did I say "no consensus"? I do have a clear opinion as everyone else seems to have (noone voted +0 until now). Rainer
Re: [VOTE] Bundle apr/apu with 2.4.x
On Thu, 2012-02-02 at 09:54 -0500, Jim Jagielski wrote: > > [X] +1: Bundle apr/apu w/ Apache httpd 2.4.x > [ ] +0: I don't care > [ ] -1: Do not bundle apr/apu with Apache httpd 2.4.x > signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: [VOTE] Bundle apr/apu with 2.4.x
On 2/2/2012 4:18 PM, Rainer Jung wrote: > > Hmmm, no clear consensus until now. Consensus? Looks pretty split so far :) Or do you mean you had no clear opinion until now?
Re: [VOTE] Bundle apr/apu with 2.4.x
On 02.02.2012 15:54, Jim Jagielski wrote: I'm calling a vote to get consensus on whether we should continue to bundle apr/apu with httpd 2.4.x. The proposal is that at the time we T&R 2.4.x, we also "bundle" that latest, released versions of apr/apu "with" the httpd tarball. How we bundle it (eg: sep tarball or have it part of the httpd tarball ala 2.2.x) and what we call it are *not* part of the vote, the idea being that if we do wish to bundle it, we can decide the "best" way to do so. If we don't wish to bundle, the issue is moot. Let's give it the normal 72 hours: [X] +1: Bundle apr/apu w/ Apache httpd 2.4.x [ ] +0: I don't care [ ] -1: Do not bundle apr/apu with Apache httpd 2.4.x Hmmm, no clear consensus until now. Regards, Rainer
Re: [VOTE] Bundle apr/apu with 2.4.x
On Feb 2, 2012 12:01 PM, "Nick Kew" wrote: > > On Thu, 2 Feb 2012 09:54:02 -0500 > Jim Jagielski wrote: > > > > [*] -1: Do not bundle apr/apu with Apache httpd 2.4.x > > > > Cheers! > > Those users who might have difficulty with an unbundled package > aren't likely to be installing from our tarballs. That's what > downstream packagers are for. Agreed. -1
Re: [VOTE] Bundle apr/apu with 2.4.x
On Feb 2, 2012, at 10:34 AM, Graham Leggett wrote: > On 02 Feb 2012, at 4:54 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote: > >> I'm calling a vote to get consensus on whether we should continue >> to bundle apr/apu with httpd 2.4.x. >> >> The proposal is that at the time we T&R 2.4.x, we also "bundle" >> that latest, released versions of apr/apu "with" the httpd tarball. >> How we bundle it (eg: sep tarball or have it part of the httpd tarball >> ala 2.2.x) and what we call it are *not* part of the vote, the >> idea being that if we do wish to bundle it, we can decide the >> "best" way to do so. If we don't wish to bundle, the issue is moot. >> >> Let's give it the normal 72 hours: >> >> [ ] +1: Bundle apr/apu w/ Apache httpd 2.4.x >> [ ] +0: I don't care >> [X] -1: Do not bundle apr/apu with Apache httpd 2.4.x > > To be most specific, do what we're doing now. (ie separate -deps). > Doing what we're doing now would be: [X] +1: Bundle apr/apu w/ Apache httpd 2.4.x Can you confirm that's how you'd vote?
Re: [VOTE] Bundle apr/apu with 2.4.x
On 2/2/2012 9:34 AM, Graham Leggett wrote: >> >> [ ] +1: Bundle apr/apu w/ Apache httpd 2.4.x >> [ ] +0: I don't care >> [X] -1: Do not bundle apr/apu with Apache httpd 2.4.x > > To be most specific, do what we're doing now. (ie separate -deps). Graham, I believe you need to recast your vote. Jim specifically pointed out "how" wasn't the subject of the vote. Providing /any/ apr packages is the subject of this vote, and the how (combined, separate, named -deps or named -required-apr-additional-packages) would be determined next :)
Re: [VOTE] Bundle apr/apu with 2.4.x
On Thu, 2 Feb 2012 09:54:02 -0500 Jim Jagielski wrote: > [*] -1: Do not bundle apr/apu with Apache httpd 2.4.x > > Cheers! Those users who might have difficulty with an unbundled package aren't likely to be installing from our tarballs. That's what downstream packagers are for. -- Nick Kew
Re: [VOTE] Bundle apr/apu with 2.4.x
On Feb 2, 2012, at 9:54 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote: > [X] +1: Bundle apr/apu w/ Apache httpd 2.4.x > [ ] +0: I don't care > [ ] -1: Do not bundle apr/apu with Apache httpd 2.4.x
Re: [VOTE] Bundle apr/apu with 2.4.x
On 02 Feb 2012, at 4:54 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote: > I'm calling a vote to get consensus on whether we should continue > to bundle apr/apu with httpd 2.4.x. > > The proposal is that at the time we T&R 2.4.x, we also "bundle" > that latest, released versions of apr/apu "with" the httpd tarball. > How we bundle it (eg: sep tarball or have it part of the httpd tarball > ala 2.2.x) and what we call it are *not* part of the vote, the > idea being that if we do wish to bundle it, we can decide the > "best" way to do so. If we don't wish to bundle, the issue is moot. > > Let's give it the normal 72 hours: > > [ ] +1: Bundle apr/apu w/ Apache httpd 2.4.x > [ ] +0: I don't care > [X] -1: Do not bundle apr/apu with Apache httpd 2.4.x To be most specific, do what we're doing now. (ie separate -deps). APR and APR-Util are standalone projects that are stable and mature, and people should be installing those independently from httpd these days. Regards, Graham -- smime.p7s Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
Re: [VOTE] Bundle apr/apu with 2.4.x
Am 02.02.2012 15:54, schrieb Jim Jagielski: I'm calling a vote to get consensus on whether we should continue to bundle apr/apu with httpd 2.4.x. The proposal is that at the time we T&R 2.4.x, we also "bundle" that latest, released versions of apr/apu "with" the httpd tarball. How we bundle it (eg: sep tarball or have it part of the httpd tarball ala 2.2.x) and what we call it are *not* part of the vote, the idea being that if we do wish to bundle it, we can decide the "best" way to do so. If we don't wish to bundle, the issue is moot. Let's give it the normal 72 hours: [x] +1: Bundle apr/apu w/ Apache httpd 2.4.x [ ] +0: I don't care [ ] -1: Do not bundle apr/apu with Apache httpd 2.4.x Gün.
Re: [VOTE] Bundle apr/apu with 2.4.x
On 2/2/2012 8:54 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote: > > Let's give it the normal 72 hours: > > [ ] +1: Bundle apr/apu w/ Apache httpd 2.4.x > [ ] +0: I don't care > [X] -1: Do not bundle apr/apu with Apache httpd 2.4.x
RE: [VOTE] Bundle apr/apu with 2.4.x
> -Original Message- > From: Jim Jagielski [mailto:j...@jagunet.com] > Sent: Donnerstag, 2. Februar 2012 15:54 > To: dev@httpd.apache.org > Subject: [VOTE] Bundle apr/apu with 2.4.x > > I'm calling a vote to get consensus on whether we should continue > to bundle apr/apu with httpd 2.4.x. > > The proposal is that at the time we T&R 2.4.x, we also "bundle" > that latest, released versions of apr/apu "with" the httpd tarball. > How we bundle it (eg: sep tarball or have it part of the httpd tarball > ala 2.2.x) and what we call it are *not* part of the vote, the > idea being that if we do wish to bundle it, we can decide the > "best" way to do so. If we don't wish to bundle, the issue is moot. > > Let's give it the normal 72 hours: > > [X] +1: Bundle apr/apu w/ Apache httpd 2.4.x > [ ] +0: I don't care > [ ] -1: Do not bundle apr/apu with Apache httpd 2.4.x > > Cheers! Regards Rüdiger
[VOTE] Bundle apr/apu with 2.4.x
I'm calling a vote to get consensus on whether we should continue to bundle apr/apu with httpd 2.4.x. The proposal is that at the time we T&R 2.4.x, we also "bundle" that latest, released versions of apr/apu "with" the httpd tarball. How we bundle it (eg: sep tarball or have it part of the httpd tarball ala 2.2.x) and what we call it are *not* part of the vote, the idea being that if we do wish to bundle it, we can decide the "best" way to do so. If we don't wish to bundle, the issue is moot. Let's give it the normal 72 hours: [ ] +1: Bundle apr/apu w/ Apache httpd 2.4.x [ ] +0: I don't care [ ] -1: Do not bundle apr/apu with Apache httpd 2.4.x Cheers!
