Subject: Re: apr0/apr naming scheme not getting along with pkg_chk (hard problem)
To: None <email@example.com>
From: Eric Gillespie <epg@NetBSD.org>
Date: 03/18/2007 19:52:34
Greg Troxel <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> I have a machine with a number of packages, including:
> apr (0.9)
> pkg_chk reports:
> devel/apr - apr-0.9.12.2.0.59nb2 < apr-188.8.131.52.2.4nb1
> and so 'pkg_rolling-replace -uv' does make replace package clean in
> devel/apr, which happily installs apr-184.108.40.206.2.4nb1
> Then, subversion-base and apache2 are both broken due to wrong
> shlibs, but they are marked unsafe_depends=YES, and pkg_rr will
> get to them and replace.
Sorry about this. I'm not the biggest pkgsrc expert, but i did
run this stuff by tech-pkg first. The problem is that i tested
*installing* but completely failed to test *upgrading*, because
upgrading pkgsrc is a disaster, and i never do it. I instead
install into a new tree and update a symlink to point to it.
> But, one can't install both apr0 and apr1, subversion-base by
> default wants apr0, and apache2 wants only apr0, so builds of both of
> those fail.
I made them require apr0 by default for compatibility. I don't
if that was the right decision.
> apr naming:
> It seems apr0 is the "standard" version, and apr1 is the "living
> on the edge" version, despite ASF's claims that 2.2.x is now
> 'standard' and 2.0 "legacy". So therefore renaming apr to apr0
> was premature.
What makes you think this? Our apr0 package represents a
never-formally-released apr and apr-util. apr 1.2 is *not*
"living on the edge"; it is the supported stable version.
> default apr choice and apache naming:
> If apr 1.x is standard, then subversion should just use it by
> default. And www/apache should get 2.2, with apache20 and apache1
> the old ones.
I don't object to moving the subversion packages to apr 1.2 /
httpd 2.2 by default. apr0 is old and dead.
> 3) The Apache people should have made a way to have apr be able to
> install multiple versions at the same time.
Yeah. They're almost there, which had me thinking at first that
they could be installed side-by-side. I think the .exp file may
be the only blocker.
Eric Gillespie <*> epg@NetBSD.org