On Thu, Dec 01, 2005 at 12:53:22AM -0600, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote: > Is buildconf present? If the user runs it, does it corrupt the unpacked > tree?
Um. Have you even *tried* to run './buildconf' in an extracted httpd 2.2.0 tarball? I have - guess what? It works just fine. Therefore, there is no corruption. The default case with no arguments works exactly as expected. It only goes wonky if you give it bad arguments. It might not be as robust as we might like (the fact that it switches directories means passing --with-apr doesn't work as expected - yawn - don't specify the args!). The case remains that the default arguments (i.e. none) to buildconf work. If this particular corner case bugs you so much, you can go and commit a fix yourself - I'll even vote for it to be backported for 2.2.1. Still, I've yet to see a single issue - including this one - raised that would cause to me to even consider changing my +1 vote for GA. -- justin
