httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Marc Slemko <>
Subject Re: Source reorganisation
Date Sun, 29 Jun 1997 23:06:28 GMT
On Sun, 29 Jun 1997, Alexei Kosut wrote:

> I'm not against these changes in 1.3, but I personally feel they'd go
> better into 2.0, when we *are* making code changes. For one thing, the
> origanlization of the reoganization needs some thinking about (the
> exact proposal you made has some problems, as others have pointed
> out).

I am wary about 1.3 getting out of hand.  Development is good, but 1.3 was
supposed to be a quick plop Windows in, some new non-core features, and
off we go.

> However, there is one thing that's always bugged me about Apache
> vs. some other Unix packages, and this has to do with both the
> organization of the source and the configuration issue, is this:
> To compile the server, Apache requires the user to go into the src/
> directory, and muck with things there, and the httpd binary ends up
> there. IMHO, Configure and the Makefile it produces should be in the
> top-level directory, as should the resultant httpd binary. Again IMHO,
> the user should never be forced to even see source files unless they
> plan to read or change them (which I think most Apache users do
> not).

I'm wondering if that is better left to an install script in the top level
directory that can do things like make the server, copy the binary,
install the tree, perhaps even a quick edit of the config files, etc.  I
don't know that it is necessary to take the configuration script and
makefile out of the subdirectory to achieve the goal of hiding them from
users who don't care.

> But as I said, this is more a 2.0 thing. I'd still like to see a 1.3b1
> within a month.
> -- 
> ________________________________________________________________________
> Alexei Kosut <>      The Apache HTTP Server
> URL:

View raw message