[RFC] require apr/apr-util 1.2.x for 2.2.x

2005-10-24 Thread Joe Orton
There was a thread about this previously; just checking for consensus, is there any objection to bumping the apr/apr-util version requirements to 1.2.x? (1.2.x is already required for mod_dbd, event MP, and it will simplify the code to allow unconditional use of 1.2.x features) Index:

Re: [RFC] require apr/apr-util 1.2.x for 2.2.x

2005-10-24 Thread Nick Kew
On Monday 24 October 2005 13:22, Joe Orton wrote: There was a thread about this previously; just checking for consensus, is there any objection to bumping the apr/apr-util version requirements to 1.2.x? (1.2.x is already required for mod_dbd, event MP, and it will simplify the code to allow

Re: [RFC] require apr/apr-util 1.2.x for 2.2.x

2005-10-24 Thread Colm MacCarthaigh
On Mon, Oct 24, 2005 at 01:22:36PM +0100, Joe Orton wrote: There was a thread about this previously; just checking for consensus, is there any objection to bumping the apr/apr-util version requirements to 1.2.x? (1.2.x is already required for mod_dbd, event MP, and it will simplify the

Re: [RFC] require apr/apr-util 1.2.x for 2.2.x

2005-10-24 Thread Jeff Trawick
On 10/24/05, Nick Kew [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Monday 24 October 2005 13:22, Joe Orton wrote: There was a thread about this previously; just checking for consensus, is there any objection to bumping the apr/apr-util version requirements to 1.2.x? (1.2.x is already required for mod_dbd,

Re: [RFC] require apr/apr-util 1.2.x for 2.2.x

2005-10-24 Thread Justin Erenkrantz
On Mon, Oct 24, 2005 at 01:41:18PM +0100, Colm MacCarthaigh wrote: If I might also ask, would anyone mind if; ./configure --with-apr=bundled --with-apr-util=bundled were added as options? Right now APR_FIND_APU and APR_FIND_APR are given 1 as the third argument, which means that if

Re: [RFC] require apr/apr-util 1.2.x for 2.2.x

2005-10-24 Thread Justin Erenkrantz
On Mon, Oct 24, 2005 at 01:22:36PM +0100, Joe Orton wrote: There was a thread about this previously; just checking for consensus, is there any objection to bumping the apr/apr-util version requirements to 1.2.x? (1.2.x is already required for mod_dbd, event MP, and it will simplify the

[Fwd: Re: [RFC] require apr/apr-util 1.2.x for 2.2.x]

2005-10-24 Thread William A. Rowe, Jr.
On Monday 24 October 2005 13:22, Joe Orton wrote: There was a thread about this previously; just checking for consensus, is there any objection to bumping the apr/apr-util version requirements to 1.2.x? (1.2.x is already required for mod_dbd, event MP, and it will simplify the code to allow

Re: [RFC] require apr/apr-util 1.2.x for 2.2.x

2005-10-24 Thread William A. Rowe, Jr.
Justin Erenkrantz wrote: On Mon, Oct 24, 2005 at 01:41:18PM +0100, Colm MacCarthaigh wrote: If I might also ask, would anyone mind if; ./configure --with-apr=bundled --with-apr-util=bundled were added as options? Right now APR_FIND_APU and APR_FIND_APR are given 1 as the third