I suppose I could do this, but it concerns me that cherokee would not keep its ubuntu packages up to date. All mainstream apps/utilities should do this IMO. Pretty sure apache never requires manual compilation, ya know?
Having said that, I definitely appreciate the work that's been done on Cherokee--I prefer it to the alternatives, but please, somebody get the packages up to date! (Although like I said, my version number is the same that is on the Cherokee home page.) --brad g. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Visit www.bradezone.com today and be the trailblazer of your peer group. On Tue, Feb 26, 2013 at 11:31 AM, - - <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Tue, 26 Feb 2013, Brad Garrett wrote: > > > >> I really don't want to get into the whole manual compiling business. The > >> package should be robust enough. > > >> Am 26.02.2013 um 10:53 schrieb Stefan de Konink <[email protected]>: > >> > >>> On Tue, 26 Feb 2013, Brad Garrett wrote: > >> > >>> I really don't want to get into the whole manual compiling business. > The > >>> package should be robust enough. > >> > >> You updated ;) Not us. > > > > Seriously?? Is this supposed to be an official statement? > > I am sure Stefan was just joking, don't take it too seriously. > > But Cherokee on Github and Cherokee in the Ubuntu repositories are two > totally different spheres of responsibility. The Ubuntu package is **OLD** > and I am 99,9% sure that the compiled version is working. If someone would > be able to maintain the Ubuntu packages, they would be up to date. It's not > something that is ignored on purpose. > > Once you are into compiling, there is no real difference in upgrading a > package, or upgrading the compiled version. If you need help compiling, or > have questions, ask here, or ask me directly. > > Stadtpirat > > >
_______________________________________________ Cherokee mailing list [email protected] http://lists.octality.com/listinfo/cherokee
