]] Peter Samuelson
| What a mess. I don't think any of that is appropriate for lenny at
| this time.
fwiw, I don't think it's worth the effort of saving a little bit of disk
space post-lenny afterwards. There shouldn't be any security
implications as the backends should be loaded on demand and
[Daniel Baumann]
> > And I doubt the release
> > team would accept it, anyway. Lenny is frozen.
>
> i don't think the release team is that unreasonable to now allow a feeze
> exception for it.
The library freeze was about 2 months ago. I don't think the release
managers would want to let a lib
Stefan Fritsch wrote:
> On i386, the difference is 4MB of disk space. I don't think that this
> justifies the work to change the packaging.
the point is not the disk space, but the additional truckload of code
that gets installed on webservers.
> And I doubt the release
> team would accept it,
On Friday 29 August 2008, Daniel Baumann wrote:
> Therefore, please build two binary packages out of apr-util, one
> which is build against the db backends, and one without (and apache
> depends against it them conditionally). Otherwise, this is a
> serious regression from the admin point of view f
Package: apr-util
Hi,
I'm aware of new apr-util in experimental that can load db backends
dynamically, however, this is not how lenny should be treated. It's a
major pita to have mysql *and* psql *and* sqlite libraries on a
webservers depends by *default*.
Therefore, please build two binary pack
5 matches
Mail list logo
