On Wednesday 20 April 2005 17:25, Christian Parpart wrote:
>
> I might be wrong, but... I do not think that this will be easily
> possible, because all modules would have to deel with this, too.
>
>
> Besides all this, suppose the case that we've an apache httpd 2.1-line
> would in the trees, someo
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Lance Albertson wrote:
> Why do you have to
> push all these improvements on the current stable line of apache (2.0.x) ? Why
> can't these changes just be used in the upcoming alpha/beta releases and
> totally
> be implemented by the time they move to
Elfyn McBratney wrote:
[snip]
> - have the newer apache ebuilds migrate from old-style to new-style config
> (very hard to do, but possible)
>
>
By the way, why not choose this occasion to switch using utf8 ?
Not an expert in character collation and similar, I'm experimenting this:
/etc/apach
Christian Parpart wrote:
> On Wednesday 20 April 2005 2:14 pm, Lance Albertson wrote:
>
>>Christian Parpart wrote:
>>
>>>And yeah, I disagree to a move-back, too!! I'm most likely not to support
>>>this in any kind, instead, I'd be willing in pushing p.mask'ed apache
>>>httpd 2.1 into the tree, so
On Wednesday 20 April 2005 10:59 am, Paul de Vrieze wrote:
> On Wednesday 20 April 2005 09:36, Christian Parpart wrote:
> > And yeah, I disagree to a move-back, too!! I'm most likely not to
> > support this in any kind, instead, I'd be willing in pushing p.mask'ed
> > apache httpd 2.1 into the tree
On Wednesday 20 April 2005 2:14 pm, Lance Albertson wrote:
> Christian Parpart wrote:
> > And yeah, I disagree to a move-back, too!! I'm most likely not to support
> > this in any kind, instead, I'd be willing in pushing p.mask'ed apache
> > httpd 2.1 into the tree, so, that I don't have to live wi
Christian Parpart wrote:
> And yeah, I disagree to a move-back, too!! I'm most likely not to support
> this
> in any kind, instead, I'd be willing in pushing p.mask'ed apache httpd 2.1
> into the tree, so, that I don't have to live with the old shitty behavior
> again.
>
> Seriousely, why did
On Wednesday 20 April 2005 09:36, Christian Parpart wrote:
> And yeah, I disagree to a move-back, too!! I'm most likely not to
> support this in any kind, instead, I'd be willing in pushing p.mask'ed
> apache httpd 2.1 into the tree, so, that I don't have to live with the
> old shitty behavior agai
On Tuesday 19 April 2005 10:51 pm, Paul de Vrieze wrote:
> On Tuesday 19 April 2005 21:45, Elfyn McBratney wrote:
> > APR and APU are stand-alone and independent of apache, so there is no
> > need to p.mask those libs.
>
> They do not coexist with the old apache2 properly as apache2 includes it's
>
On Tuesday 19 April 2005 21:45, Elfyn McBratney wrote:
>
> APR and APU are stand-alone and independent of apache, so there is no need
> to p.mask those libs.
They do not coexist with the old apache2 properly as apache2 includes it's own
version. As did subversion.
Paul
--
Paul de Vrieze
Gentoo
On Tuesday 19 Apr 2005 20:31, Paul de Vrieze wrote:
> On Saturday 16 April 2005 14:38, Paul Varner wrote:
> > On Sat, 2005-04-16 at 06:56 +0100, Elfyn McBratney wrote:
> > > The way I see it, we have three options:
> > > - package.mask (downgrades for those early adopters)
> > > - keep the same l
On Saturday 16 April 2005 14:38, Paul Varner wrote:
> On Sat, 2005-04-16 at 06:56 +0100, Elfyn McBratney wrote:
> > The way I see it, we have three options:
> > - package.mask (downgrades for those early adopters)
> > - keep the same layout (/etc/apache2/conf, etc.) and wait until 2.2 is
> > out
On Sat, 2005-04-16 at 06:56 +0100, Elfyn McBratney wrote:
> The way I see it, we have three options:
> - package.mask (downgrades for those early adopters)
> - keep the same layout (/etc/apache2/conf, etc.) and wait until 2.2 is out to
>change it
> - have the newer apache ebuilds migrate fro
On Sat, 2005-04-16 at 06:56 +0100, Elfyn McBratney wrote:
> As I'm sure many of you will know, the updated apache and associated ebuilds
> (so-called apache refresh) have caused a number of problems since coming out
> of package.mask and going into testing. As a result, we have a number of
> p
Hi Folks,
As I'm sure many of you will know, the updated apache and associated ebuilds
(so-called apache refresh) have caused a number of problems since coming out
of package.mask and going into testing. As a result, we have a number of
packages that simply do not function with the updated apa
15 matches
Mail list logo
