Message-Id: <199602121406.IAA21434@sierra.zyzzyva.com>
To: new-httpd@hyperreal.com
Subject: Re: votes on 1.0.2 
In-reply-to: drtr's message of Mon, 12 Feb 1996 12:43:00 +0000.
         <m0tlxbM-0000kLC@mamba.ast.cam.ac.uk>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Date: Mon, 12 Feb 1996 08:06:58 -0600
From: Randy Terbush <randy@zyzzyva.com>
Sender: owner-new-httpd@apache.org
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: new-httpd@hyperreal.com

> >65b.new-make.tar.gz     -1
> >        This still seems to have some problems with dependencies.
> >        It would often decide do rebuild everything after making a
> >        change in one .c file. Painful decision on a Sparc 1+.
> 
> Well,
>  1) It doesn't do this for me (under SunOS 4)
>  2) The makefile that is run using 65b.new-make.tar.gz should be almost
>     identical to that run using the old system. So it shouldn't behave
>     any differently.
> 
> More details please?

The package was a bit cumbersome when needing to add a library link
flag. For example -lmsql. Changes to Makefile also caused a complete
recompile, which may or may not be necessary.

We've kicked this carcas around for quite some time. I think what
would be helpful in solving the problem is to agree on a concept
before anyone spends much of the work to make it happen.

Suggestions:

I see two (well three) options:

1. Using the GNU style autoconf.
2. Using the Perl style Configuration script.
3. Come up with our own....

I personally would vote for the Perl style since it seems to normally
prompt the user for configuration info. We could then step through
available modules and descriptions of each.

IF we could get a consensus on one of these options, it would be much
more attractive to do the work. There is way to much work involved to
start in a direction that is not supported by the group.
(speaking as someone who tried several iterations of Makefile in the past)