httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jim Jagielski <...@jaguNET.com>
Subject Re: WANTHSREGEX
Date Sat, 25 Oct 1997 13:02:03 GMT
Ben Laurie wrote:
> 
> Jim Jagielski wrote:
> > 
> > Ben Laurie wrote:
> > >
> > > Dean Gaudet wrote:
> > > > This is one of the reasons I really like autoconf -- instead of
> > > > complaining to us, they complain to GNU and GNU adds features to autoconf
> > > > and we inherit that work.  But I'm not about to touch that argument again.
> > >
> > > Actually, do touch it. Autoconf has moved on since that argument, and I,
> > > for one, would like to revisit the possibility. Still have reservations
> > > about the maintenance load, but I haven't been bitten by autoconf lately
> > > (possibly because I've largely given up using OSes that GNU don't have
> > > much interest in, such as SCO).
> > >
> > 
> > I think the argument would have much better weight if held off
> > until 2.0.
> 
> I wasn't really thinking we should do it for 1.3. Honest.
> 

In my dreams (nightmares???) I envision 2.0 as an autoconf'ed C++
monster. I shiver. :)

One thing I'm not sure about... if we use autoconf, and we need to
make adjustments to it for one thing or another, how do we
go about maintaining the diffs between ``our'' version and
GNU's? Do we just start updating ours or do we need to keep
our's in line with GNU's and fold our diffs in each time if
they aren't in the official one? It's good to say that people
bug GNU when stuff doesn't work, but doesn't that mean that
we are stuck in a holding pattern until GNU fixes it?
(PS: I have no idea how quicking autoconf is maintained. I
still try to steer clear as much as possible).

-- 
====================================================================
      Jim Jagielski            |       jaguNET Access Services
     jim@jaguNET.com           |       http://www.jaguNET.com/
            "Look at me! I'm wearing a cardboard belt!"

Mime
View raw message