From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 25183 invoked by uid 1002); 9 Jul 2003 20:37:59 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gentoo-dev-help@gentoo.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@gentoo.org Received: (qmail 8839 invoked from network); 9 Jul 2003 20:37:59 -0000 From: Paul de Vrieze To: gentoo-dev@gentoo.org Date: Wed, 9 Jul 2003 22:37:30 +0200 User-Agent: KMail/1.5.2 References: <20030709031214.GA30084@breccia.escarpment> <20030709035108.GD1285@fuerzag.ulatina.ac.cr> <34887.216.190.203.130.1057778162.squirrel@squirrelmail.kydance.net> In-Reply-To: <34887.216.190.203.130.1057778162.squirrel@squirrelmail.kydance.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha1; boundary="Boundary-02=_h0HD/2oTQWbMM0X"; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <200307092237.53589.pauldv@gentoo.org> X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.8 required=5.0 X-Spam-Level: X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-milter (http://amavis.org/) Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] **HEADS UP** Apache2 + MySQL4 moving to stable status X-Archives-Salt: 619cda93-b64c-41b7-bfc3-60d3f39438ca X-Archives-Hash: 79df60a33c0199e5b4e32d06ccd8936b --Boundary-02=_h0HD/2oTQWbMM0X Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Description: signed data Content-Disposition: inline On Wednesday 09 July 2003 21:16, Matthew Walker wrote: > Alvaro Figueroa Cabezas said: > > On Jul 08 23:12, Donny Davies wrote: > >> Sometime this weekend (likely Friday or Saturday) Robin and I > >> will move these two packages to non-arch-masked status. > > > > I was just wondering, is php+apache2 mature enought to do this? It seems > > like less than two months since php changed its SAPI module code. > > I've got a couple smallish servers running php+apache2 with no problems at > all. What disturbs me is that unless things have changed, php doesn't bui= ld > for apache2 unless the apache2 useflag is set. How is this going to affect > people when the update is done? That should be covered by optional useflags Paul =2D-=20 Paul de Vrieze Researcher Mail: pauldv@cs.kun.nl Homepage: http://www.devrieze.net --Boundary-02=_h0HD/2oTQWbMM0X Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Description: signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.2 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQA/DH0hbKx5DBjWFdsRAu20AKCLvbcd84UobJtrclfKL550tEYglACg6oJQ CcJajCKsaZwMqLqOXg+qNJg= =lFpH -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Boundary-02=_h0HD/2oTQWbMM0X--