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 version. As did subversion.
AFAIK we can't have apr/apr-utils as standalone pkgs as long as we've subversion or apache2 still embedding it, that's been the reason for providing the ebuild patch for subversion (from the apache herd), too - I remember. Just embedding them again is really a great lost of at least maintainability, so at least do I feel. 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 we put all our power into those improvements when we're now about to revert mostly everything? Regards, Christian Parpart. -- Netiquette: http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc1855.txt 09:29:00 up 27 days, 22:35, 0 users, load average: 0.01, 0.05, 0.00
pgpFGxPPtrag7.pgp
Description: PGP signature
