- Original Message -
From: Stipe Tolj [EMAIL PROTECTED]
However, isn't that postinstall copying superfluous? Wouldn't
it be better to have the cyghttpd.dll already in usr/bin in
the tar archive?
yes, basicly I have done this because after make install we result
with
- Original Message -
From: Stipe Tolj [EMAIL PROTECTED]
So, what votes are given for leaving /etc/httpd ?
Uhmm, simply put I don't care beyond voicing my opinion. However I also
won't care is 1000 users complain when another www server is pacakaged
and collides with apache.
Rob
Jérôme-Georges-Michel BENOIT [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The orignal name of main source is `tetex-beta-20001218':
Indeed, so please just name the new bugfixed package
tetex-beta-20001218-3.
but this operation should take some time and the 'list' asked me to
rebuid the current cygwin package
On Fri, Jan 11, 2002 at 05:31:58PM -0800, Stephan Erickson wrote:
- the mufassa module as of now is compiled with the Apache-SSL source
code. Not all platforms support DSO Apache modules well, and I'm not
sure about Cygwin.
Did you try it with Stipes Apache (which will hopefully soon
be part
On Sat, Jan 12, 2002 at 08:22:31AM -0800, Stephan Erickson wrote:
Actually I wasn't thinking for a minute there. Individual packages it
shall be.
I've got an attempt at db-3.0.55, nothing glamorous, getting the hang of
things.
db-4.0.14 will be on the way.. always afraid of new software
On Sat, Jan 12, 2002 at 11:28:00PM +1100, Robert Collins wrote:
- Original Message -
From: Stipe Tolj [EMAIL PROTECTED]
However, isn't that postinstall copying superfluous? Wouldn't
it be better to have the cyghttpd.dll already in usr/bin in
the tar archive?
yes, basicly
On Sat, Jan 12, 2002 at 11:28:00PM +1100, Robert Collins wrote:
- Original Message -
From: Stipe Tolj [EMAIL PROTECTED]
However, isn't that postinstall copying superfluous? Wouldn't
it be better to have the cyghttpd.dll already in usr/bin in
the tar archive?
yes,
BTW, I'm also chaning paths for $logfiledir and $proxycache dir to the
named apache instead of httpd.
Stipe
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
---
Wapme Systems AG
Münsterstr. 248
40470 Düsseldorf
Tel: +49-211-74845-0
Fax: +49-211-74845-299
Corinna Vinschen schrieb:
On Sat, Jan 12, 2002 at 06:53:43PM +0100, Stipe Tolj wrote:
No I don't think so. I'll change the /etc path thing and re-package to
apache_1.3.22-3, now!
apache-1.3.22-3, please!
A dash, no underscore.
Apache distributions do use a underscore, BTW. I know
Ok, just uploading the new package at the same place as the previous
versions.
Here are the changes for 1.3.22-3:
* changed $sysconfdir from /etc/httpd to /etc/apache,
also for $logfiledir and $proxycachedir
* added CYGWIN-PATCHES sub-dir to source tree including
patch to re-create
Hallo Corinna,
Am 2002-01-12 um 17:01 schriebst du:
[Apache, SSL}
Berkely DB, LibWWW, SSMTP *would be nice* as single packages.
Why *would* it be nice? I need Berkeley DB for Perl too, with dynamic
libs if possible, please;) And also the others, these are no special
programs/libraries but
On Sat, Jan 12, 2002 at 09:12:31PM +0100, Gerrit P. Haase wrote:
What is so special with qmail? There is an existing port of exim which
It's not Qmail, it's *any* MTA which I'm interested in. I'm not
talking about my peronal needs. I'd also be very happy about exim
or sendmail or postfix.
If you want to be able to have both apoache 1.3 and 2 installed
concurrently, then that is the only valid reason to use an underscore -
and the result should look like
apache_1-1.3.22-3
Rob
===
- Original Message -
From: Stipe Tolj [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sunday,
===
- Original Message -
From: Christopher Faylor [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sunday, January 13, 2002 10:15 AM
Subject: Re: [ANN] apache_1.3.22-2
On Sun, Jan 13, 2002 at 10:12:48AM +1100, Robert Collins wrote:
If you want to be able to have both apoache 1.3 and 2
I'd like to put in a vote for NOT treating '_' and '-' identically.
While it is easy to use apache1 and apache2 instead of apache_1
and apache_2 -- it isn't so easy for packages (like bzip2) that
already end with a numeral. I'm specifically thinking of: splitting
bzip2 into a bzip2 and
- Original Message -
From: Charles Wilson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I'd like to put in a vote for NOT treating '_' and '-' identically.
..
In fact, I *thought* setup/upset didn't treat '_' any differently than
'a' but perhaps I was wrong...
So did I - I'm going to check. If they are treated
On Sun, Jan 13, 2002 at 11:22:14AM +1100, Robert Collins wrote:
- Original Message -
From: Charles Wilson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I'd like to put in a vote for NOT treating '_' and '-' identically.
..
In fact, I *thought* setup/upset didn't treat '_' any differently than
'a' but perhaps I
===
- Original Message -
From: Christopher Faylor [EMAIL PROTECTED]
So did I - I'm going to check. If they are treated the same now, then
we'll have to check that no pacakges will get broken if we change.
Otherwise I'll be changing it:}
From parse_filename():
for (ver = p; *ver;
On Sat, Jan 12, 2002 at 07:54:12PM -0500, Charles Wilson wrote:
Christopher Faylor wrote:
On Sun, Jan 13, 2002 at 11:22:14AM +1100, Robert Collins wrote:
- Original Message -
From: Charles Wilson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I'd like to put in a vote for NOT treating '_' and '-' identically.
Robert Collins wrote:
Okay, I've renamed the devel package:
libtool-devel-20010531-6
that should be libtool_devel-20010531-6 shouldn't it?
(devel is a flavour and thus part of the name).
I _think_ that the current upset and setup.exe logic actually starts at
the right and owrks left,
Robert Collins wrote:
Of getting automake 1.5b pacakged? Perhaps as a test version?
It's got a key fix in it that drops som Makefile.in's down from Mb's to
just Kb's.
I forward ported the current patch, and rebuilt automake-devel from
1.5b. That seemed to go okay; I'm waiting for make
- Original Message -
From: Charles Wilson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I forward ported the current patch, and rebuilt automake-devel from
1.5b. That seemed to go okay; I'm waiting for make check to complete.
If successful, I'll post the packages for Corinna to do with as she
wants.
Thanks
- Original Message -
From: Charles Wilson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Robert Collins [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sunday, January 13, 2002 6:31 PM
Subject: Re: ITP: libtool-devel, libtool-stable, libtool (wrappers)
Robert Collins wrote:
Okay, I've renamed the devel
===
- Original Message -
From: Charles Wilson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Oh, and on voting for this package: IMO just upload it.
It's a very core package, required for many apps, and the patches are
going into libtool-HEAD.
Chris has a veto on packages, but I don't think I'll be stepping to
24 matches
Mail list logo
