Re: Setting RM blessed versions of autoconf/libtool/swig/apr/apr-util/httpd/neon/zlib for 1.5

[Max Bowsher]
> * It has been suggested that we switch to apr 1.2.x in the dependency
> tarball. Do we have consensus on that?

As you probably remember, I brought this issue up in March 2006 (see
thread at http://svn.haxx.se/dev/archive-2006-03/0501.shtml). At the
time, people made some objections to telling the truth about how the
libsvn ABI changes when you use apr 1.2. I hope those same people
(Justin, Joe) also object to shipping apr 1.2 in the deps tarball!
Because from the standpoint of ABI promises, that's a far more
disruptive change than my patch was.

Peter

P.S. For those who are curious but don't want to read the whole thread,
I believe the argument went something like this. (Yes, my summary will
be biased.)

  - apr 1.2 breaks the libsvn ABI, therefore we must ship apr 0.9

  - some users chose to break the libsvn ABI on their own, by compiling
    with apr 1.2, and we have allowed them to do this

  - telling the linker (truthfully!) that the libsvn published ABI
    changes when you use apr 1.2 breaks the libsvn ABI ... for those
    users who already broke it

  - therefore we must pretend the libsvn ABI does _not_ change when you
    move to apr 1.2, because it's more important to avoid breaking the
    ABI for users who already broke the ABI than to do things correctly
    for users who haven't already broken it

-- 
Peter Samuelson | org-tld!p12n!peter | http://p12n.org/
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org