apr-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "William A. Rowe, Jr." <wr...@rowe-clan.net>
Subject RE: make_export.awk
Date Sat, 16 Dec 2000 21:20:04 GMT
> From: rbb@covalent.net [mailto:rbb@covalent.net]
> Sent: Saturday, December 16, 2000 12:09 PM
> On Sat, 16 Dec 2000, Sascha Schumann wrote:
> >     I had too much free time today, so I created make_export.awk.
> >     During that I noticed that I either lack some awk knowledge
> >     or that the awk's expression mechanism lacks a useful feature
> >     (backreferencing). I've worked around that by using two sub's
> >     in the respective block.
> I dislike this idea.  I realize (now) that awk is available on Windows,
> but Perl is already required to build Apache on Windows, and all of a
> sudden we are going to add the requirement of awk too.  Why?  We already
> require Perl on every platform when building Apache, but we do not
> currently require awk.

Do we?  For what?  I couldn't care less which 'free intepreter' we use.
Perl is a matter of convenience for Win32 to rewrite .dsp's.  I'd expect
a greater number of users to be familiar with perl than awk, but that's
probably neither here nor there.
> Unless there is a really good reason to change this to awk, I would much
> rather use Perl.  That is a -1 (vote not veto) for the awk version.  I
> would also point out that we have always expected developers to have Perl
> installed on their machines, and people who download the binary will not
> need it.

Actually this brings up a huge issue.  I'm currently battling rewrites in
the Windows .msi installer, trying to make a 'native' extension for this
job, or we will have to bundle 1. our own rewriter, or 2. someone else's
rewriter.  If we bundle gnu awk, we just fell into a deep pit we aren't
going to succeed in crawling out of :-(

View raw message