On Thu, 2004-07-01 at 18:19, Ben Collins-Sussman wrote:
> On Thu, 2004-07-01 at 17:07, Greg Hudson wrote:
> > But we'll have to use APR 1.0 when we use httpd
> > 2.2. So, depending on when we expect httpd 2.2, we may wind up going
> > straight from 1.1 to 2.0.
> Is there some reason to think that we're required to use httpd 2.2 when
> it's released? Aren't we allowed to just say, "sorry, SVN works with
> httpd 2.0.x and APR 0.9 only?"
Sure, that's an option. I don't know if it's one developers would
support.
Garrett said:
> I mean up to now we've supported both APR 0.9 (which is actually
> shipped in the svn releases) and 1.0, which you have to go get
> from CVS.
If I understand the outcome of
http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=apr-dev&m=108860637218865&w=2 right, apr
1.0 may not ship with an apr-config (it would ship with an apr-1-config
instead), in which case we wouldn't be supporting apr 1.0 without a
local hack. And I think that's well and proper; it would make life
harder on third-party application developers to have two sets of
incompatible Subversion ABIs running around.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Fri Jul 2 00:31:39 2004