| 1 |
On Wednesday 20 April 2005 10:59 am, Paul de Vrieze wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Wednesday 20 April 2005 09:36, Christian Parpart wrote: |
| 3 |
> > And yeah, I disagree to a move-back, too!! I'm most likely not to |
| 4 |
> > support this in any kind, instead, I'd be willing in pushing p.mask'ed |
| 5 |
> > apache httpd 2.1 into the tree, so, that I don't have to live with the |
| 6 |
> > old shitty behavior again. |
| 7 |
> > |
| 8 |
> > Seriousely, why did we put all our power into those improvements when |
| 9 |
> > we're now about to revert mostly everything? |
| 10 |
> |
| 11 |
> I believe that most issues are with the new configuration setup. What |
| 12 |
> about checking for the old configuration format and in that case |
| 13 |
> providing the old configuration setup. If there is no old format (or |
| 14 |
> allready a working new format config file) use the new config system. |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
I might be wrong, but... I do not think that this will be easily possible, |
| 17 |
because all modules would have to deel with this, too. |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
Besides all this, suppose the case that we've an apache httpd 2.1-line would |
| 21 |
in the trees, someone emerged it (though, don't have 2.0.x installed), is |
| 22 |
there be a way to get subversion with +apache2 useflag installed? apache-2.1 |
| 23 |
needs latest apr/apr-util's, I just hope that this wouldn't crash in any way. |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
Cya, |
| 26 |
Christian Parpart. |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
-- |
| 29 |
Netiquette: http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc1855.txt |
| 30 |
17:23:03 up 28 days, 6:29, 0 users, load average: 0.26, 0.31, 0.34 |
Archives