| 1 |
On Tuesday 19 April 2005 10:51 pm, Paul de Vrieze wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Tuesday 19 April 2005 21:45, Elfyn McBratney wrote: |
| 3 |
> > APR and APU are stand-alone and independent of apache, so there is no |
| 4 |
> > need to p.mask those libs. |
| 5 |
> |
| 6 |
> They do not coexist with the old apache2 properly as apache2 includes it's |
| 7 |
> own version. As did subversion. |
| 8 |
|
| 9 |
AFAIK we can't have apr/apr-utils as standalone pkgs as long as we've |
| 10 |
subversion or apache2 still embedding it, that's been the reason for |
| 11 |
providing the ebuild patch for subversion (from the apache herd), too - I |
| 12 |
remember. Just embedding them again is really a great lost of at least |
| 13 |
maintainability, so at least do I feel. |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
And yeah, I disagree to a move-back, too!! I'm most likely not to support this |
| 16 |
in any kind, instead, I'd be willing in pushing p.mask'ed apache httpd 2.1 |
| 17 |
into the tree, so, that I don't have to live with the old shitty behavior |
| 18 |
again. |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
Seriousely, why did we put all our power into those improvements when we're |
| 21 |
now about to revert mostly everything? |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
Regards, |
| 24 |
Christian Parpart. |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
-- |
| 27 |
Netiquette: http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc1855.txt |
| 28 |
09:29:00 up 27 days, 22:35, 0 users, load average: 0.01, 0.05, 0.00 |
Archives