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, someone
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
own
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 again.
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 with the
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, so,
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, that I don't
-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 the
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 layout
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 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 from
10 matches
Mail list logo
