Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-new-httpd-archive@apache.org Received: (qmail 79959 invoked by uid 500); 24 Mar 2000 23:58:29 -0000 Mailing-List: contact new-httpd-help@apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk X-No-Archive: yes Reply-To: new-httpd@apache.org list-help: list-unsubscribe: list-post: Delivered-To: mailing list new-httpd@apache.org Received: (qmail 79947 invoked from network); 24 Mar 2000 23:58:28 -0000 Date: Fri, 24 Mar 2000 17:58:27 -0600 From: Manoj Kasichainula To: new-httpd@apache.org Subject: Re: Dependancies aren't working. Message-ID: <20000324175827.C8168@io.com> Mail-Followup-To: new-httpd@apache.org References: <20000324175235.B8168@io.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.1.7-current-20000302i In-Reply-To: ; from rbb@apache.org on Fri, Mar 24, 2000 at 06:54:44PM -0500 X-Spam-Rating: locus.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N On Fri, Mar 24, 2000 at 06:54:44PM -0500, Ryan Bloom wrote: > On Fri, 24 Mar 2000, Manoj Kasichainula wrote: > > Silly question. Did you "make depend" first? > > Stupid answer, No. :-{ > > I feel stupid now. Heh. I did the same thing (and made the same complaint on the list) a couple of weeks ago. > I haven't been paying much attention to the Makfiles, > and I've always assumed that because dependancies always worked in 1.3, we > already had them working in the checked out tree of 2.0. I think I prefer the current setup. Now, we don't have to deal with periodic dependency checkins to CVS.