From: Jim Jagielski <jim@jaguNET.com>
Message-Id: <199708131828.OAA19941@devsys.jaguNET.com>
Subject: Re: apachen and modules/extra
To: new-httpd@apache.org
Date: Wed, 13 Aug 1997 14:28:25 -0400 (EDT)
In-Reply-To: <Pine.GSO.3.95.970813110624.21815B-100000@veal.organic.com> from
 "Alexei Kosut" at Aug 13, 97 11:07:39 am
Content-Type: text
Sender: new-httpd-owner@apache.org
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: new-httpd@apache.org

Alexei Kosut wrote:
> 
> On Wed, 13 Aug 1997, Jim Jagielski wrote:
> 
> > I'm wondering... Would it be better to rename that directory as
> > something like modules/need_makefile or something like that?
> > My concern is that whatever modules are placed there, Configure
> > will create it's own Makefile. If the module has it's own, then
> > Configure will over-write it. By renaming the directory, it may
> > be a bit more clear, esp for those who don't read the docs too
> > well.
> 
> Nah. I think modules/extra is good. Any module that does come with a
> Makefile will come in a directory with directions saying "move this
> directory into src/modules". If they don't follow that, it probably won't
> work anyway.
> 

As long as the fact that any Makefile in modules/extra is overwritten
is documented...
-- 
====================================================================
      Jim Jagielski            |       jaguNET Access Services
     jim@jaguNET.com           |       http://www.jaguNET.com/
            "Look at me! I'm wearing a cardboard belt!"