Hi
Don't get me wrong, binaries are good, but...
I might have missed something but wouldn't it be better to build against
Apache 1.3.26. I thought this was the recommended version of the 1.3 branch
(as it has security fixes etc.). Of course mods compiled against 1.3.22 may
work on 1.3.26.
Thanks for your (collective) efforts,
Anthony.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Henri Gomez [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: 26 September 2002 12:18
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: Apache 2.0.42
>
> JK 1.2.0 is tagged (JK_1_2_0_rel) and source tarball is being
> constructed (without webapp, jk/native2, java parts).
>
> I'll provide rpm for Redhat users, against Apache 1.3.22 (with ssl),
> Apache 2.0.42 (also with SSL).
>
> mod_jk.so for Apache 1.3 (with and without SSL), and 2.0.42 will also be
> provided.
>
> IIS binaries should follow shortly, may be even iSeries V5R1 SAVF.
>
> Stay tuned
>
**********************************************************************
This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and
intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they
are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify
the system manager.
This footnote also confirms that this email message has been swept by
MIMEsweeper for the presence of computer viruses.
www.mimesweeper.com
**********************************************************************
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
