[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Modified: httpd/httpd/branches/2.0.x/STATUS > URL: > http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/httpd/httpd/branches/2.0.x/STATUS?rev=570074&r1=570073&r2=570074&view=diff > ============================================================================== > --- httpd/httpd/branches/2.0.x/STATUS (original) > +++ httpd/httpd/branches/2.0.x/STATUS Mon Aug 27 04:28:22 2007 > @@ -165,6 +165,10 @@ > adjusted for 2.0 including both patches; > http://people.apache.org/~wrowe/r568779-backport-2.0-r2.patch > +1: wrowe > + rpluem says: What is the reason for the patch to Makefile.in in your > + proposal? Besides I think > + sed 's#i^LIBTOOL = \(.*\)#LIBTOOL = $(SHELL) > $(installbuilddir)/libtool $(LTFLAGS)#' > + is wrong (Note the i before ^). > and prior to r569934; > +1: rpluem
Yes, I'm a vim user who always forgets modern linux is happy to navigate and stay in insert mode ;-) That file will not be applied, please ignore (it's the proposed fix to solve vpath with external apr junk.) > @@ -175,6 +179,9 @@ > Backported to 2.0 (on top of log core patch, above); > http://people.apache.org/~wrowe/r569535-backport-2.0.patch > +1: wrowe > + -1: rpluem: It does not apply to 2.0. Even if > + http://people.apache.org/~wrowe/r568326-backport-2.0-r2.patch > + is applied first. Reviewing, and will update, thank you.
