Mark Phippard wrote:
> There was a brief discussion on IRC last week where a user was using
> APR 0.9.12 and Sussman wondered why any new user would not just use
> 1.2.x from the start. One reason is that our dependencies tarball
> includes 0.9.x.
> Should we change this for the 1.5 release? I believe the binary
> dependency issue has been raised in the past for a reason to not do
> this, but wouldn't the people most likely be to affected by this
> problem be using an APR from their distro?
IIUC, our stated reason for not changing from APR 0.9.x to 1.x in the
dependencies tarball so far has been that since we expose APR types in
our public APIs, it is an API change for Subversion to do so.
In practise, most distros have already dealt with this hurdle, and
build-from-source people will only be disrupted by this if one of the
following holds true:
(1) They are also using something which compiles and links against
Subversion itself - rare, I would think.
(2) They are using mod_dav_svn with Apache 2.0.x - a distinct possibility.
However, with the growing popularity of Apache 2.2.x, my opinion is that
it is acceptable for us to change the bundled dependency APR version if
we document the issue in the release notes. We can further mitigate the
problem if we fix configure to NOT use the bundled APR/APR-util when
--with-apxs is explicitly or implicitly in operation, using the
APR/APR-util already forming part of the references Apache installation
in that case. That's a change I think we should have done long ago in
Received on Sun Sep 16 18:36:06 2007