On Thu, 21 Aug 2014 12:39:40 -0400
Jim Jagielski wrote:
> OK... created a CentOS5 system w/ libtool 1.5.26 and
> autoconf 2.69, so I can RM 2.2.x!
Excellent! Sorry I missed your note, claws mail client doesn't
re-sort by last-post date in threaded mode. Someday, I'll find
a mail reader I can d
As noted, I already spent time creating a VM
of CentOS5 with the required toolchain, so I'm good
to go.
On Aug 21, 2014, at 1:26 PM, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
> On Thu, 21 Aug 2014 13:59:52 +0200
> Ruediger Pluem wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> Jim Jagielski wrote:
>>> I offered to RM but OtherBill said
On 8/21/14 6:26 PM, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
> That about sums it up. Sorry, I am still drowning in my late father's
> affairs for another 3-4 weeks, but will make time to do this in 2 hours
> from now, sum up votes and move files Sun a.m. for a Mon a.m. release.
> That saves anyone else from cr
On Thu, 21 Aug 2014 13:59:52 +0200
Ruediger Pluem wrote:
>
>
> Jim Jagielski wrote:
> > I offered to RM but OtherBill said he'd do it; plus, last
> > time I did, I used more up-to-date versions of autoconf, et.al.
> > and OtherBill complained that for the 2.2 built, we should
> > continue to us
OK... created a CentOS5 system w/ libtool 1.5.26 and
autoconf 2.69, so I can RM 2.2.x!
On Aug 21, 2014, at 12:26 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
> I have a CentOS 5 system that may have those older versions...
> CentOS 6 uses libtool 2.2.6b...
>
> Let me check and, if so, I can RM.
>
> Thx!
> On Aug
I have a CentOS 5 system that may have those older versions...
CentOS 6 uses libtool 2.2.6b...
Let me check and, if so, I can RM.
Thx!
On Aug 21, 2014, at 7:59 AM, Ruediger Pluem wrote:
>
>
> Jim Jagielski wrote:
>> I offered to RM but OtherBill said he'd do it; plus, last
>> time I did, I us
Jim Jagielski wrote:
> I offered to RM but OtherBill said he'd do it; plus, last
> time I did, I used more up-to-date versions of autoconf, et.al.
> and OtherBill complained that for the 2.2 built, we should
> continue to use the much older versions...
>
> FWIW, I still can't recall which old ve
I offered to RM but OtherBill said he'd do it; plus, last
time I did, I used more up-to-date versions of autoconf, et.al.
and OtherBill complained that for the 2.2 built, we should
continue to use the much older versions...
FWIW, I still can't recall which old version numbers we
should be using fo
Ben Reser wrote:
> On 8/5/14 2:21 PM, Mark Blackman wrote:
>> This might be more of user than dev question, but as the discussions about
>> timing were here, I’ll go with here.
>>
>> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/httpd-dev/201407.mbox/<20140721075315.ec908e91c20de17e6e448089a4bc3ed2.f
On 8/5/14 2:21 PM, Mark Blackman wrote:
> This might be more of user than dev question, but as the discussions about
> timing were here, I’ll go with here.
>
> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/httpd-dev/201407.mbox/<20140721075315.ec908e91c20de17e6e448089a4bc3ed2.f963b4ea46.wbe%40email11.
On 2014-08-05 15:21, Mark Blackman wrote:
> Hi,
>
> This might be more of user than dev question, but as the discussions about
> timing were here, I’ll go with here.
>
> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/httpd-dev/201407.mbox/<20140721075315.ec908e91c20de17e6e448089a4bc3ed2.f963b4ea46.wbe
Hi,
This might be more of user than dev question, but as the discussions about
timing were here, I’ll go with here.
http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/httpd-dev/201407.mbox/<20140721075315.ec908e91c20de17e6e448089a4bc3ed2.f963b4ea46.wbe%40email11.secureserver.net>
suggested the 2.2.28 tag
12 matches
Mail list logo
