Jyri Virkki wrote: > Sriram Natarajan wrote: > >> Hi >> modules like suphp (http://www.suphp.org) is unable to compile out of >> the box because of the way we deliver apr/apr-util. Is there any >> > > How/why exactly? > > extensions like these depend on various apr header files. while some of them reside within apr while the rest deliver within apr-util package. now, if we had both apr/apr-util (even if it is a separate package) deliver its header files under /usr/apr/1.3 , things would have been lot easier rather what we have now - /usr/apr/1.3 and /usr/apr-util/1.3
Just to clarify - i am not questioning as to why we split these packages but i wonder why we deliver them into 2 different locations rather than simply deliver both of them under /usr/apr/1.3 > What it it relying on? Packaging details don't alter the bits that > ultimately end up on disk once all relevant packages have been > installed. So unless suphp is checking the package database, how > would it know? > > >> particular reason, why we cannot deliver these files in the same fashion >> as done on other platforms ? >> > > It's a common pkg split, same as on other platforms (debian, Ubuntu). > but I guess, these packages don't deliver files into different install locations. > >> Do we expect apr component to have multiple >> binary incompatible releases ? >> > > IIRC that was discussed in the case, but don't remember details > offhand. Check the ARC case. > > >
