On Thu, Feb 26, 2004 at 11:33:38PM -, David Reid wrote:
>...
> > > > I suspect because there is an empty file_io/beos directory that gets
> > > > checked
> > > > out. Any of the make system folks care to fix this?
> > >
> > > The directory has contains no files in HEAD already, so if you check
> On Thu, Feb 26, 2004 at 09:10:58PM +, Joe Orton wrote:
> > On Thu, Feb 26, 2004 at 05:00:48PM -, David Reid wrote:
> > > Just did a totally clean checkout on beos to try and get things
building
> > > again, and the buildconf script worked almost as advertised - but
managed to
> > > miss o
On Thu, Feb 26, 2004 at 09:10:58PM +, Joe Orton wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 26, 2004 at 05:00:48PM -, David Reid wrote:
> > Just did a totally clean checkout on beos to try and get things building
> > again, and the buildconf script worked almost as advertised - but managed to
> > miss out the ent
On Mon, Feb 16, 2004 at 02:23:31PM -0500, Craig Rodrigues wrote:
> This patch imports config.{guess,sub} from autoconf 2.59,
> and also adds in the Apache specific changes to those files.
> It fixes building apr on amd64 platforms.
Craig - can you check whether the APR 0.9 branch works on your amd
On Thu, Feb 26, 2004 at 05:00:48PM -, David Reid wrote:
> Just did a totally clean checkout on beos to try and get things building
> again, and the buildconf script worked almost as advertised - but managed to
> miss out the entire file_io/unix directory!
>
> I suspect because there is an empt
Just did a totally clean checkout on beos to try and get things building
again, and the buildconf script worked almost as advertised - but managed to
miss out the entire file_io/unix directory!
I suspect because there is an empty file_io/beos directory that gets checked
out. Any of the make system
It isn't dragging on at all. The APR PMC has asked the FSF about it via
their licensing@ address. Awaiting a response now...
Cheers,
-g
On Thu, Feb 26, 2004 at 10:01:19AM +0100, Dirk-Willem van Gulik wrote:
> This is dragging on a bit - while it is important in my
> opinion. To resolve this you -
This is dragging on a bit - while it is important in my
opinion. To resolve this you - perhaps give your PMC
some input as what you would like them to do:
-> Ask the board; my guess is that our answer will be;
not a derived work if we are talking about #include <...
and strict API
This is dragging on a bit - while it is important in my
opinion. To resolve this you - perhaps give your PMC
some input as what you would like them to do:
-> Ask the board; my guess is that our answer will be;
not a derived work if we are talking about #include <...
and strict API
APRUTIL LIBRARY STATUS: -*-text-*-
Last modified at [$Date: 2003/03/31 05:32:43 $]
Release:
0.9.3 : Tagged March 30, 2002
0.9.2 : Released March 22, 2002 (alpha)
0.9.1 : Released September 11, 2002 (alpha)
0.9.0 : Not released
APACHE PORTABLE RUNTIME (APR) LIBRARY STATUS: -*-text-*-
Last modified at [$Date: 2003/11/21 10:42:03 $]
Release:
0.9.3 : tagged March 30, 2003
0.9.2 : released March 22, 2003
0.9.1 : released September 11, 2002
0.9.0 : released August 28, 2002
2.0a9
Use of the API is usually interpreted as forming a derivative work
under
copyright law, and I'm certain it's the FSF's interpretation, which is
what counts here.
Actually, no, the FSF is the only legal entity known to mankind that
interprets copyright law in that fashion, and has so far avoided th
12 matches
Mail list logo
