httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jim Jagielski <...@jaguNET.com>
Subject Re: Configur{e,ation} changes
Date Mon, 09 Sep 1996 12:20:50 GMT
Alexei Kosut wrote:
> 
> I uploaded a few weeks ago a set of scripts (generated by autoconf)
> that do exactly what you just said. You didn't seem to like them; I
> never did quite figure out why.
> 

Not to be snotty or create animosity, but isn't disagreement and discussion
part of the group. Just because one member says something doesn't mean
that we need to do it. I thought that we were a group, not a monarchy.

Okay, okay, let's discuss this further :)
Right now we have a Configuration setup that works quite well.
No real hassles, no big complaints, it's simple, it does the
job and it works. Now sure it would be neat to have it
automatically guess the OS, but this would involve more
Rules (like ON486, USINGNIS) since Configuration.guess can't
determine that. That's a trade-off and I have no problem with
that. But I don't think _anyone_ has come up with a compelling
reason why we _need_ OS guessing right now. And if we decide
to go that route, I haven't seen any compelling reason do go
with the huge and complex GNUautoconf setup, with all the
baggage that it entails.

As far as true autoconfs are concerned, has _anyone_ seen a
truly automatic, reliable autoconf? Perl's works, but it
asks questions. Sendmail/named requires that you specify
the OS. Others require you to create or edit configuration
files. Even the GNU stuff needs tweaking unless you are happy
with their defaults, and if you aren't they make changing
them painful. In any case, I don't think that Apache will
ever allow for that sort of "press start" configuration
and compiling. It's too complex and does too much. Look
at all the other packages out there; the more complex the
_less_ they use some sort of autoconf. Rather, they have
defaults/configs in sep files or in sep directories. As
it is know, Apache is one of the simpler one's to compile.
Look at innd! Ack!

I'm working on Configuration.guess now, but I still think it's
up to the _group_ to decide if we want/need it. I don't see
a compelling reason for it, but I'm not adamantly against it
either, so I'm '0'

We make people copy Configuration.tmpl to Configuration anyway,
as well as requiring them to edit Configuration unless they
are 100% satisfied with the default modules, in which case
they still need to uncomment out their PLATFORM line (so we
would save them one step).

To add even more fuel to the fire, if we _do_ go with Configuration.guess,
what about those people who are happy with the default module list...
Isn't it a drastic burden to make them copy Configuration.tmpl to
Configuration?

:)
-- 
Jim Jagielski  << jim@jaguNET.com >>   |   "There is a time for laughing,
  **  jaguNET Access Services  **      |    and a time for not laughing,
      Email: info@jaguNET.com          |    and this is not one of them"
++    http://www.jaguNET.com/         +++      Voice/Fax: 410-931-3157       ++

Mime
View raw message