I realize my response wasn't clear, but I was advocating that we switch
to APR-defined make strategy...
I re-read my response, and it was clear to me I was thinking it, but
didn't state explicitly.
geir
Garrett Rooney wrote:
> On 6/16/06, Nataly Naumova <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> here's th
On 6/16/06, Nataly Naumova <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
here's the reason of not building *extra* things by their own build.
Initially there was a concept not to use own build for every *extra*
things, such as APR or CLASSLIB in order to support different
compilers and configurations. For APR it
Nataly Naumova wrote:
> On 6/16/06, Geir Magnusson Jr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Why exactly is APR slightly massaged and then specially built?
>>
>> Why can't we just do the regular ./configure -> make sequence to build
>> it?
>
> Hi Geir,
>
> here's the reason of not building *extra* thing
On 6/16/06, Geir Magnusson Jr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Why exactly is APR slightly massaged and then specially built?
Why can't we just do the regular ./configure -> make sequence to build it?
Hi Geir,
here's the reason of not building *extra* things by their own build.
Initially there was
Why exactly is APR slightly massaged and then specially built?
Why can't we just do the regular ./configure -> make sequence to build it?
geir
-
Terms of use : http://incubator.apache.org/harmony/mailing.html
To unsubscribe, e-m
