Message-Id: <199602130243.UAA24887@sierra.zyzzyva.com>
To: new-httpd@hyperreal.com
Subject: Re: votes on 1.0.2 
In-reply-to: dgaudet's message of Mon, 12 Feb 1996 10:20:24 -0800.
         <25681.824149224@get.wired.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Date: Mon, 12 Feb 1996 20:43:20 -0600
From: Randy Terbush <randy@zyzzyva.com>
Sender: owner-new-httpd@apache.org
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: new-httpd@hyperreal.com

> In article <9602121618.aa05028@gonzo.ben.algroup.co.uk> you write:
> >I actually quite like autoconf, now that I understand a bit about it. The cute
> >thing is that it stands some chance of doing the right thing on OSes it has
> >never seen, and also of noticing improvements in existing OSes. That said,
> >I can't even _compile_ autoconf on SCO 3, haven't tried 5 yet.
> 
> I "ported" by MUD code (which does serious non-blocking socket stuff, it's
> on par with apache for OS dependance) to autoconf at a time when I had
> access to sunos 4, and ultrix 4.  It worked with a minor tweak under
> dynix/ptx (had to write a gettimeofday() routine), and with no tweaks to
> linux.  After I upgraded to autoconf 2 it worked with no tweaks on solaris,
> irix, and bsdi.
> 
> I'd say go for autoconf plus a file that lists modules.  Make sure you
> use autoconf 2 since you are starting from scratch.  Set it up so that
> most people can unpack, type ./configure (pick some useful default
> installation directory... maybe /usr/local/httpd) and make install.
> That's what people like ;)
> 
> Dean

I agree that 'autoconf' is very "common". However I have yet to
see an autoconf session that prompted for user feedback. If we
do it right, we could eliminate the need to edit *any* files.

As for autoconf, it is basically done for us already in a file sitting
in incoming.