At 12:46 PM 7/2/2004, Branko ÄŒibej wrote: >William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote: > >>At 06:41 PM 7/1/2004, Branko ÄŒibej wrote: >> >>>Thoughts? I think 1.0 is an auspicious time to make this change, especially >>>if we declare apr-iconv to be an implementation detail of apr_xlate. >> >>The nifty bit is, if we declare apr-iconv to be an internal, implementation >>detail of apr_xlate - we are free to adopt your suggestions in 1.0.1 :) >That's true. > >Then I suggest we really do close off apr-iconv. This means the apr-iconv >headers shouldn't get installed, right? Among other things.
++1 to that idea, as long as apr-util internally gets the -I / -L paths to the build of apr-iconv, and they don't persist in the apu-1-config file. Bill
