-On [20050630 01:01], Eric Gillespie (epg@pretzelnet.org) wrote:
>Jeroen Ruigrok/asmodai <asmodai@in-nomine.org> writes:
>
>> The only issue this brings (nothing for subversion, I asked one of the core
>> developers, aside from recompiling to make use of the new libraries, due to
>> ABI differences) is that apache2 depends on apr.
>
>You misunderstood what i told you.  Subversion 1.x must consider
>APR as part of its API and ABI guarantees.  This means Subversion
>1.x must stick with apache 2.0.x and the apr it ships with.

I didn't misunderstand you, as you will see in later emails I sent on the
subject.
Sticking with apache 2.0.x and its apr (0.9) is logical/useful if you desire
WebDAV functionality.  (Leaving neon out of the picture for a minute.)
If you leave Apache out of the picture you can use either apr 0.9 or 1.1.
That's my issue.  APR 1.1 fixes some bugs, sendfile() use for example, and
supports the OS I am using.  I do not want/need WebDAV, others may, and that
difference/issue is what I am trying to solve.

>> So in effect this means that the apache2 pkg needs a apr09 (repocopy from
>> apr).
>
>You can't build mod_dav_svn.so against apr 0.9 and then load it
>into httpd linked with apr 1.1.  Additionally, to make our apache
>2.0.x package use apr 1.x would break Apache's API and ABI
>guarantees, just as with Subversion.

That's what I said, apache 2.0 cannot use apr 1.x.  And apache 2.1/2 cannot
use apr 0.9.
Thanks for the clarification on the ABI/API issue, I knew it already, but
perhaps this makes things even more clear for others.

>> How to handle apache 2.1/2.2?  Create an apache22 pkg or will apache2 be
>> moved to apache20 and 2.1/2.2 will become apache2?
>
>I would suggest:
>
>  1. copy apache2 to apache20
>  2. move apr to apr09, continue using apache20 distfile
>  3. make subversion-base depend on apr09 and ap2-subversion on apache20
>  4. make new apr and apr-util packages with their own distfiles
>  5. update apache2 to 2.2, with apr and apr-util dependencies

This doesn't solve the case for those who want/need a higher version of apr
for use with subversion and don't need apache/webdav.

>If you want to make an apache 2.1 package, you'd need to call it
>apache2-dev or something.  However, i don't see any demand for
>such a package.

2.1 is the step up to 2.2, I guess unstable/development versions are always
explicitly marked with a -dev, if so, yes, than it would mean an
apache2-dev.  If not, then apache2 can be 2.1 now and 2.2 when it reaches
the stable point.  Of course, one could debate about if you want users to
install 2.1 if it is apache2, since their reasoning might be that apache2 is
newer than apache20 (not quite incorrect), but it is development.

I hope I clarified what I meant.

-- 
Jeroen Ruigrok van der Werven <asmodai(at)wxs.nl> / asmodai / kita no mono
Free Tibet! http://www.savetibet.org/ | http://ashemedai.deviantart.com/
http://www.tendra.org/   | http://www.in-nomine.org/
Silence is one of the most effective forms of communication...