Hi Rainer, > Yes, I tried to delete all older versions of binaries (tried = as far as > permissions allowed), but for sme platforms we don't have 1.2.23 > binares, so I kept the latest available ones. that was what I expected.
> There is an open point, if we can find a way of distributing contributed > builds. I know we could get some, but there were valid concerns, if we > shold sign those with our own keys. So we would need some notion of > "contributed" and could put the binaries there. hmm, yes, that's a problem... >>> 4) why do we prefix the directories with 'jk-' although 'jk' is already >>> in the path? >> No particular reason I am aware of. We just do. > Seems to be history, and you decided to drop it for Netware :) that was by acciedent - did rename the directory to be in sync with the others; I thought that some longer time ago we did without, but when I looked through the archives it looked as if we did all the time; so it was merely a question before I checked the archives, and not the wish to change.... > So if the archives are important, we could replace the link text > "archives..." with something a little more prominent. Suggestions? well, thanks to Mark pointing me to the archives I solved this with the README file where I inserted the link to the archive, so all fine for now; and if we find the memory leak with mod_jk AP13 then with 1.2.24 I can again provide binaries for AP13 and NS. thanks, Guen. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
