Le jeu, 04 f�v 1999, vous avez �crit :
>On Thu, Feb 04, 1999, Ronan-Yann Lorin wrote:
>
>>[...]
>> If we have an eapi-x.x.tar.gz we know that we have to rebuild Apache when it
>> becomes eapi-x.y.tar.gz. On the other hand when mod_ssl's version changes
>> we know that we only have to rebuild mod_ssl.
>
>You talk about "knowledge", but that's just a matter of remembering the stuff.
>So, as I said, seems like the concern is more related to a nice named tarball
>for EAPI than technically related. Hmmm.. the problem is that I then have to
You've got it!
>maintain one more Apache-related package. I'm not convinced it is worth
>the overhead. Hmmm...
I understand your concern.
I do not ask for it ABSOLUTELY, I just said IT WOULD BE NICE IF...
Victor and I try to maintain RPM distributions of Apache+EAPI and mod_ssl as
distinct packages. The problem is to have a binary and a source Apache RPM which
includes EAPI without including cryptographic software (or without mod_ssl).
Peoples that want to get mod_ssl can get it as a separate packages (in fact two
separate packages: binary and source)
>
>> Do I understand that the eapi is now compatible with standard api and an
>> Apache+EAPI can run a standard Apache module?
>
>It always was able to run a standard Apache module without changes, of course.
>What you talk about is a DSO _binary_ of a standard Apache module. Yes, with
Yes that's what I wanted to say.
>the latest version of EAPI you can load both DSOs which were aware of EAPI at
>compile-time _and_ modules compiled with plain Apache's.
>
> Ralf S. Engelschall
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> www.engelschall.com
--
Ronan-Yann Lorin tel: +33 603 326 434
Adesium R�seaux & Services mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
France http://www.adesium-services.fr/~lorin
______________________________________________________________________
Apache Interface to SSLeay (mod_ssl) www.engelschall.com/sw/mod_ssl/
Official Support Mailing List [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Automated List Manager [EMAIL PROTECTED]
