Stas Bekman wrote:
Geoffrey Young wrote:
Geoffrey Young wrote:
The following patches delays ap_setup_prelinked_modules to slightly later, after ap_server_config_defines has been proprely initialized.
that all seems reasonable. does anyone know of any historical (or other)
reasons why this shouldn't be shuffled a bit?
this has been committed to 2.1 and proposed for backport to 2.0. vote early, vote often.
now part of 2.0.51-dev, to be released with 2.0.51. thanks all :)
So, should we refuse the static build for Apache < 2.0.51? Or at least print a warning (which most won't see anyway?)
Well, knowing httpd will simply segfault otherwise, I'd say, refuse static build for Apache < 2.0.51 with a loud bang.
+1
but that also means that currently noone can use Apache 2.0.50 or lower with static build. But there is nothing we can do about it.
-- __________________________________________________________________ Stas Bekman JAm_pH ------> Just Another mod_perl Hacker http://stason.org/ mod_perl Guide ---> http://perl.apache.org mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://use.perl.org http://apacheweek.com http://modperlbook.org http://apache.org http://ticketmaster.com
--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
