httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Brian Behlendorf <>
Subject Re: Apache 1.1b4... where is it?
Date Mon, 17 Jun 1996 19:14:04 GMT
On Mon, 17 Jun 1996, Tom Tromey wrote:
> >> 2) Autoconfiscation
> Ben> I'm still not in favour of this. As I've said before, it is nice
> Ben> for those platforms on which it is tested, but awful when it hits
> Ben> one on which it has not been tested and turns out not to work. In
> Ben> other words, it hinders portability.
> Ben> I'd rather go for autodetection of the platform combined with
> Ben> something similar to Configure (only better, for instance, I'd
> Ben> like to see module-dependant libraries handled nicely).
> I'll refrain from joining the autoconf debate again.  I think my views
> are well known.  (If you don't know them, write me and I'll talk your
> ear off :)
> At the very least could we agree to use the #defines that Autoconf
> likes?  That would make my life easier (since no matter what is
> decided here I *must* use Autoconf to integrate Apache into my build
> tree), and it wouldn't significantly change Apache -- but it would
> have the desirable side effect of enforcing a consistent naming
> scheme.

There is an interesting compromise - use autoconf-style #define's, and
still distribute a Configuration document which contains #define settings
for a majority of platforms, with the statement "if your platform is not
listed here, please run the 'try-new-configuration' script to see if we
can detect what settings your platform needs".  That would eliminate the
need for most people to run the autoconf Configure program.

Is this workable?  Or is it more trouble than it's worth?



View raw message