Sometimes it's useful to have comments in the configure cruft, but yeah
the dnl's should stay.
-aaron
On Tuesday, February 11, 2003, at 08:51 AM, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
--On Tuesday, February 11, 2003 3:36 PM + [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
jorton 2003/02/11 07:36:56
Modified:.
On Tue, Apr 30, 2002 at 11:49:41PM -, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> jerenkrantz02/04/30 16:49:41
>
> Modified:.configure.in
> Log:
> Add --disable-atomics flag which will prevent APR from using its *own*
> optimized code. On those OSes that properly support atomics from
> "William A. Rowe, Jr." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > With all of the new config/proc_mutex/hints changes again, once you
> > have all beaten upon them, would someone care to summarize the
accepted
> > "safe" versions so I might tar .34 tommorow?
>
> I wonder about that tar :) 2.0.34 is no
"William A. Rowe, Jr." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> At 08:31 PM 4/4/2002, you wrote:
> >"William A. Rowe, Jr." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> > > With all of the new config/proc_mutex/hints changes again, once you
> > > have all beaten upon them, would someone care to summarize the accepted
>
At 08:31 PM 4/4/2002, you wrote:
>"William A. Rowe, Jr." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > With all of the new config/proc_mutex/hints changes again, once you
> > have all beaten upon them, would someone care to summarize the accepted
> > "safe" versions so I might tar .34 tommorow?
>
>I wonder ab
"William A. Rowe, Jr." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> With all of the new config/proc_mutex/hints changes again, once you
> have all beaten upon them, would someone care to summarize the accepted
> "safe" versions so I might tar .34 tommorow?
I wonder about that tar :) 2.0.34 is not worth using
>jim 02/04/04 13:35:43
>
> Modified:.configure.in
> Log:
> Typo
>
> Revision ChangesPath
> 1.425 +1 -1 apr/configure.in
With all of the new config/proc_mutex/hints changes again, once you
have all beaten upon them, would someone care to summarize the a
