On 07/08/09 08:26, Jyri Virkki wrote: > Sriram Natarajan wrote: >> 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 > > Ah, don't know|remember why the file layout split. Hopefully others > can comment what led to it.
The main reason was that apr and apr-util were two different projects with different release cycles. Hence, the current layout was proposed to support apr 1.3 and apr-util 1.4 like scenarios ! -- Seema. >> Just to clarify - i am not questioning as to why we split these packages > > Re-read your Subject line to see why the confusion ;-) > > >
