"William A. Rowe, Jr." wrote:
>
>
> This was a snafu in the way the rpm change was presented, not in the
> tarballs. httpd-2.0's distribution tarball will always contain apr 0.9.
>
> That doesn't mean httpd-2.2 (with apr 1.x) will do the same; that's yet
> to be determined.
In that case t
Luc Pardon said:
> In that case the 2.0 httpd.spec files should either a) not require
> pre-installed apr packages and build apr as part of the httpd rpm,
A definite -1 on this. If this were so, httpd could not coexist cleanly
with other packages that depended on APR.
> or b)
> build the bun
Graham Leggett wrote:
>
> Luc Pardon said:
>
> > In that case the 2.0 httpd.spec files should either a) not require
> > pre-installed apr packages and build apr as part of the httpd rpm,
>
> A definite -1 on this. If this were so, httpd could not coexist cleanly
> with other packages that
Luc Pardon said:
>Yes, but what got me confused is that the httpd tarball comes with
> the APR source (hence the docs don't talk about it as being a
> prerequisite) whereas the current spec file requires you to go elsewhere
> and get something that is already there. It seem to me that this kin
