Hi all,
If APR is to finally stand on it's own, would anyone object to an
inclusion of an RPM spec file in v1.0.0?
Regards,
Graham
--
At 01:34 PM 6/22/2004, Graham Leggett wrote:
>Hi all,
>
>If APR is to finally stand on it's own, would anyone object to an inclusion of
>an RPM spec file in v1.0.0?
I wouldn't mind an rpm spec file for 0.9.6 either. +1
Bill
William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
I wouldn't mind an rpm spec file for 0.9.6 either. +1
There is an outstanding vote in httpd v2.0's STATUS for fixing the spec
file in httpd v2.0.49 (v2.1.0-dev has been fixed). What I'm keen to see
though is a separation of RPM packages, one for apr, one for apr-util,
Graham Leggett wrote:
> William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
>
>> I wouldn't mind an rpm spec file for 0.9.6 either. +1
>
> There is an outstanding vote in httpd v2.0's STATUS for fixing the spec
> file in httpd v2.0.49 (v2.1.0-dev has been fixed). What I'm keen to see
> though is a separation of RPM pac
At 04:04 PM 6/22/2004, Graham Leggett wrote:
>William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
>
>>I wouldn't mind an rpm spec file for 0.9.6 either. +1
>
>There is an outstanding vote in httpd v2.0's STATUS for fixing the spec file
>in httpd v2.0.49 (v2.1.0-dev has been fixed). What I'm keen to see though is a
>sep
