From dev-return-11092-apmail-apr-dev-archive=apr.apache.org@apr.apache.org Fri Feb 20 18:59:46 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-apr-dev-archive@www.apache.org Received: (qmail 6383 invoked from network); 20 Feb 2004 18:59:46 -0000 Received: from daedalus.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (208.185.179.12) by minotaur-2.apache.org with SMTP; 20 Feb 2004 18:59:46 -0000 Received: (qmail 88158 invoked by uid 500); 20 Feb 2004 18:59:30 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-apr-dev-archive@apr.apache.org Received: (qmail 88043 invoked by uid 500); 20 Feb 2004 18:59:29 -0000 Mailing-List: contact dev-help@apr.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: Delivered-To: mailing list dev@apr.apache.org Received: (qmail 88016 invoked from network); 20 Feb 2004 18:59:29 -0000 From: Jim Jagielski Message-Id: <200402201859.i1KIxWF04856@devsys.jaguNET.com> Subject: Re: apr/apr-util python dependence To: dev@httpd.apache.org Date: Fri, 20 Feb 2004 13:59:28 -0500 (EST) Cc: dev@apr.apache.org Reply-To: jim@jaguNET.com In-Reply-To: <20040220103654.C31755@lyra.org> from "Greg Stein" at Feb 20, 2004 10:36:54 AM X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.5 PL5] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Rating: daedalus.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N X-Spam-Rating: minotaur-2.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N Greg Stein wrote: > > > I hate to chime in here, but I must agree. Things have certainly > > come a long way when the build/configure system tried to > > be as LCD (lowest common denominator) as possible. > > And it was a recursive make solution which we're trying to fix. If you can > come up with an LCD approach which has a single top-level Makefile, then > please feel free. > > > If we require all this "extra" stuff, then, at least to my > > mind, it means that we need to rethink not just patch. > > Oh, come on. For somebody building straight from CVS, to add a Python > dependence? Okay, so it caught a few people unawares. We make changes like > that all the time. But this one is not hard to solve. > > In any case, this whole notion of "rewrite as a shell script" just isn't > going to fly. > :) No, I have no solutions, nor did I mean to imply that: o Such a solution is trivial o That the solution used was done with no thought of impact to developers. -- =========================================================================== Jim Jagielski [|] jim@jaguNET.com [|] http://www.jaguNET.com/ "A society that will trade a little liberty for a little order will lose both and deserve neither" - T.Jefferson