some really cool feature or performance improvement
> >> #endif
> >
> > Not directly, but you need to have apr-util 1.4 available during compile
> > time to get these modules compiled.
> >
> > Regards
> >
> > Rüdiger
> >
> >
>
> --
> View this message in context:
> http://old.nabble.com/which-apr-to-use%2C-version-numbering-confusion-tp33039336p33402972.html
> Sent from the Apache HTTP Server - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>
>
ndif
>
> Not directly, but you need to have apr-util 1.4 available during compile
> time to get these modules compiled.
>
> Regards
>
> Rüdiger
>
>
--
View this message in context:
http://old.nabble.com/which-apr-to-use%2C-version-numbering-confusion-tp33039336p33402972.html
Sent from the Apache HTTP Server - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
Mikhail T. wrote:
> On 27.12.2011 08:24, Ruediger Pluem wrote:
>> Some modules in 2.3 require the apr-util crypto API. These
>> won't work with older apr-util versions.
> Oh, Ok -- so a module may just not be built, if apr(-util) is too old at
> compile time. But if it is available, it is
> full
On 27.12.2011 08:24, Ruediger Pluem wrote:
Some modules in 2.3 require the apr-util crypto API. These
won't work with older apr-util versions.
Oh, Ok -- so a module may just not be built, if apr(-util) is too old at
compile time. But if it is available, it is fully-featured, right? In
other wor
Mikhail T. wrote:
> On 27.12.2011 02:12, Ruediger Pluem wrote:
>> You can still run httpd 2.3 with APR-UTIL 1.3.x, but you will miss some
>> features then.
>
> Will the features be missing from Apache itself? If so, is there a list of
> what's not available in the httpd?
>
> We are using the
On 27.12.2011 02:12, Ruediger Pluem wrote:
You can still run httpd 2.3 with APR-UTIL 1.3.x, but you will miss some
features then.
Will the features be missing from Apache itself? If so, is there a list
of what's not available in the httpd?
We are using the 2.2.x branch and I prefer compilin
thanks for correction.
On Tue, Dec 27, 2011 at 8:12 AM, Ruediger Pluem wrote:
>
>
> Michael Felt wrote:
> > Hi all,
> >
> > I am trying to configure and make httpd 3.16 beta on AIX and I see there
> is a difference in the way apr is handled.
> > However, I am confused about the versioning number
Michael Felt wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I am trying to configure and make httpd 3.16 beta on AIX and I see there is a
> difference in the way apr is handled.
> However, I am confused about the versioning numbering?
>
> ./configure --with-included-apr ... says apr is version 1.4.5 while if I
> chec
Hi all,
I am trying to configure and make httpd 3.16 beta on AIX and I see there is
a difference in the way apr is handled. However, I am confused about the
versioning numbering?
./configure --with-included-apr ... says apr is version 1.4.5 while if I
check the apr mail list, it seems they are t
From: "Justin Erenkrantz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, January 31, 2002 7:05 PM
> On Thu, Jan 31, 2002 at 03:53:29PM -0500, Rodent of Unusual Size wrote:
> > When we *do* go GA, are we planning on keeping this numbering?
> > I think it'll confuse and dismay the public..
>
> AIUI, I think
On Thu, Jan 31, 2002 at 03:53:29PM -0500, Rodent of Unusual Size wrote:
> Eh.. 2.0.31 and climbing..
>
> When we *do* go GA, are we planning on keeping this numbering?
Didn't we decide the answer to that question months and months
ago after several lengthy flame wars?
Tony.
> On Thu, Jan 31, 2002 at 08:33:55PM -0500, Bill Stoddard wrote:
> > I don't have an issue with the numbering, but bouncing 2.0.* to GA to alpha and
>back
again
> > will be confusing as hell to a lot of people, especially to folks who develop and
>sell
> > specialized Apache modules (RSA ClearT
On Thu, Jan 31, 2002 at 08:33:55PM -0500, Bill Stoddard wrote:
> I don't have an issue with the numbering, but bouncing 2.0.* to GA to alpha and back
>again
> will be confusing as hell to a lot of people, especially to folks who develop and
>sell
> specialized Apache modules (RSA ClearTrust, Net
> On Thu, Jan 31, 2002 at 03:53:29PM -0500, Rodent of Unusual Size wrote:
> > When we *do* go GA, are we planning on keeping this numbering?
> > I think it'll confuse and dismay the public..
>
> AIUI, I think we will be keeping this numbering. I don't think
> it'll confuse the public because whe
On Thu, Jan 31, 2002 at 03:53:29PM -0500, Rodent of Unusual Size wrote:
> When we *do* go GA, are we planning on keeping this numbering?
> I think it'll confuse and dismay the public..
AIUI, I think we will be keeping this numbering. I don't think
it'll confuse the public because when we release
Rodent of Unusual Size wrote:
> Are we going to do something Linux-like and have development
> streams numbered 2.odd.x and the golden releases 2.even.x?
You would have to do it the other way round, except you wanted to
start GA with 2.2.0 :-)
--
Sebastian Bergmann
http://sebastian-berg
Eh.. 2.0.31 and climbing..
When we *do* go GA, are we planning on keeping this numbering?
I think it'll confuse and dismay the public..
Are we going to do something Linux-like and have development
streams numbered 2.odd.x and the golden releases 2.even.x?
--
#kenP-)}
Ken Coar, Sanagendamga
17 matches
Mail list logo
