On Wednesday 20 April 2005 10:59 am, Paul de Vrieze wrote:
> On Wednesday 20 April 2005 09:36, Christian Parpart wrote:
> > 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?
>
> I believe that most issues are with the new configuration setup. What
> about checking for the old configuration format and in that case
> providing the old configuration setup. If there is no old format (or
> allready a working new format config file) use the new config system.

I might be wrong, but... I do not think that this will be easily possible, 
because all modules would have to deel with this, too.


Besides all this, suppose the case that we've an apache httpd 2.1-line would 
in the trees, someone emerged it (though, don't have 2.0.x installed), is 
there be a way to get subversion with +apache2 useflag installed? apache-2.1 
needs latest apr/apr-util's, I just hope that this wouldn't crash in any way.

Cya,
Christian Parpart.

-- 
Netiquette: http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc1855.txt
 17:23:03 up 28 days,  6:29,  0 users,  load average: 0.26, 0.31, 0.34