On Fri, Sep 13, 2002 at 06:54:08PM +0100, David Reid wrote: > OK, this doesn't seem to gel with my original or current view of apr-util, > but then you guys have been adding all sorts of stuff in there so maybe it's > place in the world has altered. If that's the case then I'm still not sure > doing something like this is the correct way of doing it.
Any suggestions then? This has a wider scope than just apr-util. apr-util, httpd-2.0, serf, flood, SVN all require some subset of those files I listed that are only in APR. For serf, flood, and SVN, they copy those files into their local repository. For apr-util and httpd-2.0, they require apr to be in a very specific location. I think we can do better. -- justin
