On Monday 24 October 2005 13:22, Joe Orton wrote:
> There was a thread about this previously; just checking for consensus,
> is there any objection to bumping the apr/apr-util version requirements
> to 1.2.x?  (1.2.x is already required for mod_dbd, event MP, and it will
> simplify the code to allow unconditional use of 1.2.x features)

+1

Indeed, given not least the close relationship of the projects, I see no
real downside in requiring APR to be latest-at-time-of-2.2-release,
whether that be 1.2 or some later version.

-- 
Nick Kew

Reply via email to