apr-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "William A. Rowe, Jr." <wr...@apache.org>
Subject Re: Issue #872 -- who wants to do it?
Date Wed, 13 Nov 2002 05:16:46 GMT

  if there is a way to plug in code into apr, apr-util, httpd, or any other
ASF project after the fact, then I'm +1 on choices (GNU?  MS?  Sun?
Who cares???)

  However, if we choose to 'distribute' code, e.g. binary builds, and those
would (by virtue of our choices) require a GPL distribution, that's not only 
earning a non-technical -1, but an outright outrageous position for the 
Chairman of the ASF to hold.  Of course, I don't suppose that is what 
you meant in this message.

  If we plug in some ./configure style choices for the 'non-unix' platforms,
that earns my wholehearted +1.  In this case, it's nothing less than you
can do when using ./configure on unix to a GNU distro of iconv.

  And bravo and congrats to Brane... excelent work on the Win32 build
schema for Win32 apr-iconv!


At 08:06 PM 11/12/2002, Greg Stein wrote:
>On Tue, Nov 12, 2002 at 01:50:51PM +0100, Branko Cibej wrote:
>> Greg Stein wrote:
>> >*optionally* using iconv should be no problem. It just gets hairy when you
>> >require the thing. I don't see a reason that patches for optional linkage
>> >would be rejected...
>> Well, I had done exactly that before, and got shot down -- IIRC by wrowe
>> and  rbb -- on the grounds that we shouldn't encourage people to use GPL
>> stuff, that the ASF had "invested" in apr-iconv and so getting it up to
>> speed should be a priority...
>> I don't see how they can explain the support for the system iconv on
>> Unix then, but the impression I got was a big "-1" waiting around the
>> corner.
>Hunh. That isn't a technical justification for a veto, so it really ought to
>be able to go in. Hell, I can technically justify it's addition, so let's
>hear the opposite :-)
>I'd say, figure out or resurrect the optional stuff and propose it again.
>Without it, the stuff is non-functional. If somebody wants to get it
>working, then more power to 'em, but "avoid a license" shouldn't stop code
>from simply working.
>Greg Stein, http://www.lyra.org/

View raw message