Subject: Re: apr0/apr naming scheme not getting along with pkg_chk (hard problem)
To: None <>
From: Eric Gillespie <>
List: tech-pkg
Date: 03/18/2007 19:52:34
Greg Troxel <> writes:

> I have a machine with a number of packages, including:
> apr (0.9)
> subversion-base
> apache2
> pkg_chk reports:
> devel/apr - apr- < apr-
> and so 'pkg_rolling-replace -uv' does make replace package clean in
> devel/apr, which happily installs apr-
> 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 <*>