On Tue Jan 27 2015 at 10:04:44 AM James Peach <jpe...@apache.org> wrote:
> > > On Jan 27, 2015, at 8:56 AM, Phil Sorber <sor...@apache.org> wrote: > > > > On Tue Jan 27 2015 at 9:18:49 AM James Peach <jpe...@apache.org> wrote: > > > >> Hi all, > >> > >> I'd like to establish a consistent policy for build dependencies. > >> Currently, we have a number of required dependencies that the build > >> platform is expected to provide, some more that we bundle but are not > (yet) > >> required, and some that are strictly optional. > >> > >> Required platform dependencies: > >> - openssl > >> - pcre > >> - tcl > >> - xml2 or expat > >> > >> Bundled (not required) dependencies: > >> - libck > >> - lua > >> > >> I propose that there's no real distinction between these two sets, so we > >> should unbundle the bundled dependencies. If we want to persist with > >> bundled dependencies, then I think we need a new methodology for > deciding > >> which dependencies should be bundled, and a better mechanism for > actually > >> bundling them. > >> > >> > > The reason for bundling those two was that there wasn't ubiquitous > platform > > support for them. We could not rely on a good version on every platform > we > > currently support. And at least for libck, the intent was to eventually > > unbundle it as we were able to deprecate the platforms that did not > support > > it. > > So following this reasoning we should also bundle spdylay? > > Quite possibly. I am not familiar with the license or availability for that. There is also the question of how much do we want to support that. Lua is meant to eventually replace the config system, so we *have* to have it. Same with libck. We want it to replace all atomics and concurrent data structures. SPDY right now is an optional feature. If we wanted to make it a default feature or if this were some HTTP2 lib we were talking about that we planned to depend on I'd definitely say yes. J
