I noticed (and ment to comment right away) that you had branched
APR_0_9_BRANCH and APU_0_9_BRANCH on the apr-util module.
This commit illustrates why that won't work. I suggest we pick one
(and APU_0_9_BRANCH would be my preference) and remove the
other tag from the apr-util cvs module. It seem
Is there a reason for part of the last change?
> ake 00/12/12 07:54:31
>
> Modified:.Makefile.win
>.aprutil.dsp
> Log:
> Fix Windows build
>
> Index: aprutil.dsp
> @@ -189,10 +179,6 @@
># Begin Source File
>
>SOURCE=.\src\bucket
Just looked at the tree... nevermind
> -Original Message-
> From: William A. Rowe, Jr. [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Tuesday, December 12, 2000 10:20 AM
> To: 'dev@apr.apache.org'; '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'
> Subject: RE: cvs commit: apr-util aprutil.dsp
> >SOURCE=.\src\buckets\ap_buckets_socket.c
> > -# End Source File
> > -# Begin Source File
> > -
> > -SOURCE=.\src\buckets\ap_buckets_util.c
> ># End Source File
> ># End Group
> ># Begin Group "crypto"
>
> Why did we drop ap_buckets_util.c? All your other changes made s
> wrowe 01/02/24 18:24:20
>
> Modified:.Apache.dsw
>.aprutil.dsp libaprutil.dsp
> Log:
> Begin to fix the build schema changes for apr-util
This hack is _not_ technically correct for building aprutil.lib (but should
be correct as a .dll). However
On Thu, May 10, 2001 at 05:33:23AM -, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> wrowe 01/05/09 22:33:23
>
> Modified:.aprutil.dsp libaprutil.dsp
> Log:
> I _swear_ this was building at one time, yet I see nothing changed,
> and no attic. Have folks mucked directly in cvs again,
