Stas Bekman wrote:
Philippe M. Chiasson wrote:
Stas Bekman wrote:
Geoffrey Young wrote:
Geoffrey Young wrote:
The following patches delays ap_setup_prelinked_modules to slightly later, after ap_server_config_defines has been proprely initialized.
that all seems reasonable. does anyone know of any historical (or other)
reasons why this shouldn't be shuffled a bit?
this has been committed to 2.1 and proposed for backport to 2.0. vote early, vote often.
now part of 2.0.51-dev, to be released with 2.0.51. thanks all :)
So, should we refuse the static build for Apache < 2.0.51? Or at least print a warning (which most won't see anyway?)
Well, knowing httpd will simply segfault otherwise, I'd say, refuse static build for Apache < 2.0.51 with a loud bang.
+1
but that also means that currently noone can use Apache 2.0.50 or lower with static build. But there is nothing we can do about it.
Exactly, and since we _know_ that it will explode otherwise, I think it's reasonable to simply bail out of the configuration if static was specified and httpd < 2.0.50 (too bad it is an httpd problem we couldn't work around)
Anyways, I'll rework my static build patch with that in mind and resubmit something this week.
-- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Philippe M. Chiasson m/gozer\@(apache|cpan|ectoplasm)\.org/ GPG KeyID : 88C3A5A5 http://gozer.ectoplasm.org/ F9BF E0C2 480E 7680 1AE5 3631 CB32 A107 88C3A5A5
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
