Re: messed up APR location...

On Wed, May 29, 2002 at 10:12:46AM -0700, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
> On Tue, May 28, 2002 at 10:16:26PM -0500, Karl Fogel wrote:
> > By the way, by "for now" do you mean that at some point in the future
> > it *would* be preferable to look in default (installed) locations
> > before looking for subdirs in the source tree right here? Personally
> > I agree with Ben C-S -- can't imagine that anything should override
> > the local subdirs, unless the user specifically asks for something
> > else.
>
> When APR becomes 1.0, I would imagine it would be fine to use any
> installed copies we find. (gstein may {dis}agree with me here.)
> At this point, the API is too unstable to rely upon, so we can't
> use any installed copies we find unless the user says otherwise.
>
> But, when the API is frozen, installed copies may be good. -- justin

Installed copies are Right(tm).

If you want the advantages of a shared library, then everybody has to refer
to that shared library. It makes no sense to have everybody running around
with their own copies. Further, if you start linking SVN into programs which
(themselves) use APR, then you ABSOLUTELY must all refer to the shared,
installed library.

IMO, we should (even now) *always* try to use an installed library first.

If that poses problems for somebody, then the user can do something like:

  ./configure --with-apr=./apr --with-apr-util=./apr-util

Theoretically, the detection code will then recognize those directories as
the bundled source directories and will use them, in preference to the
installed copies.

Cheers,
-g

-- 
Greg Stein, http://www.lyra.org/
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org