* Re: [gentoo-dev] Moving the updated apache and associated ebuilds back into package.mask
@ 2005-04-20 7:36 99% ` Christian Parpart
0 siblings, 0 replies; 1+ results
From: Christian Parpart @ 2005-04-20 7:36 UTC (permalink / raw
To: gentoo-dev
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1198 bytes --]
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
[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]
^ permalink raw reply [relevance 99%]
Results 1-1 of 1 | reverse | options above
-- pct% links below jump to the message on this page, permalinks otherwise --
2005-04-16 5:56 [gentoo-dev] Moving the updated apache and associated ebuilds back into package.mask Elfyn McBratney
2005-04-19 19:45 ` Elfyn McBratney
2005-04-19 20:51 ` Paul de Vrieze
2005-04-20 7:36 99% ` Christian Parpart
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox