httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Alexei Kosut <>
Subject Re: Uploaded mod_userdir_virtual.c to (fwd)
Date Mon, 08 Jan 1996 16:03:13 GMT
On Mon, 8 Jan 1996, Andrew Wilson wrote:

> > At any rate, if anyone was thinking about this, I'm vetoing it right now. 
> > -1
> Heh ;)  It's a module, so I guess it's immune from vetos.  If people
> don't like it then they just won't use it in preference to existing or
> improved ones.

Now wait a minute. I've heard this sort of nonsense before, and that's 
just what it is - nonsense. The module system is just an API, it's not a 
radically different way of looking at the world or at an HTTP server as a 

Most users don't care how Apache is programmed, or that its modularized, 
or whatever. They just want it to work, and work well, and do what they 
want it to do.

As developers of that HTTP server, we are responsible for anything 
shipped under the Apache tag - in the distribution. The default modules 
are part of that, and without them, I might point out, Apache don't work 
too well. I dare you to find, out of the however many sites that use 
Apache, two or more that run with mod_userdir.c (the module in question) 
not enabled.

If we take the additude (which you seem to be doing) that the only files 
we are responsible for are the http_* ones, then who's responsible for 
the rest? They were all written by members of this group, *for* this 
group. Certainly the Apache Group isn't responsible for some module 
someone wrote for their own use, but it *is* responsible for the mod_* 
files that come with the Apache distribution, just as much as the others.

Yes, we are not forcing users to use the source as we provide it. But 
that's no less true with the module system than with anything else. The 
fact is, what you say does not fit the facts. There are patches made, 
which are released as Apache distribtions. Many of these patches are to 
modules, and they can (and have been) vetoed, just like any other patch. 
The patch in question conflicts with another (my) patch, patch will 
reject it if you try to install both of them, mine is better, so I'm 
vetoing this one.

If someone wants to use mod_userdir as modified by the patch, they're 
welcome to. But that's not what I'm vetoing. I'm vetoing a patch to what 
is being distributed as the Apache HTTP Server - what is included when 
you click on the "Download" button on the web page. The fact that it's a 
module is completely irrelevant to whether or not vetos apply.

Doesn't that make sense? If it doesn't, you should have pointed this out 
back at 0.8.1, since we've been patching and vetoing modules ever since.

--/ Alexei Kosut <> /--------/ Lefler on IRC
----------------------------/ <>
The viewpoints expressed above are entirely false, and in no way
represent Alexei Kosut nor any other person or entity. /--------------

View raw message