Graham Leggett wrote: > William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote: > >> I wouldn't mind an rpm spec file for 0.9.6 either. +1 > > There is an outstanding vote in httpd v2.0's STATUS for fixing the spec > file in httpd v2.0.49 (v2.1.0-dev has been fixed). What I'm keen to see > though is a separation of RPM packages, one for apr, one for apr-util, > and one for httpd, depends though on whether httpd v2.0 can build with > apr out the tree (I've never tried).
Yes, but see bug 29740 http://nagoya.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29740 Max.
