httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From C...@PROCESS.COM (Rodent of Unusual Size)
Subject Re: [PATCH] Configure to say how to make Configuration
Date Thu, 01 Jan 1970 00:00:00 GMT
>From the fingers of Marc Slemko flowed the following:
>On Mon, 1 Dec 1997, Rodent of Unusual Size wrote:
>>     a) Configuration.tmpl should have the canonical list of modules
>>        enabled.
>>     b) Binary distributions should contain a Configuration file based
>>        upon Configuration.tmpl, customised only to make it compilable
>>        (i.e., NO changes to the module list).
>No.  The idea is that with a source distribution, there is no reason to
>include extraneous modules because all they do is add bloat and bugs.  The
>only reason they are included with a binary distribition is because of the
>idea that if someone can't get a C compiler, they aren't likely to be
>overly concerned about bloat and the tradeoff is acceptable.  There is no
>need to make any such tradeoff when they can compile it themself.  

    Balderdash.  The only reason there isn't a binary for its platform
    is because we either can't do it or were too lazy to do it.  The
    default Configuration.tmpl's module list should build them what we
    would have had we provided a binary.

>>     c) Source-only distributions should NOT contain a Configuration
>>        file, thereby requiring the user to copy the Configuration.tmpl file
>>        and make any OS-specific changes.
>>     This results in the same consistency, but doesn't give source-only
>>     distributions a default Configuration file that might be broken for
>>     the eventual OS.
>I really don't see what this ads other than an extra step.

    This *removes* a step for the person building a source release
    (no need to "cp Configuration.tmpl Configuration"), and adds no work
    for anyone else.  Your alternative (having a different module list
    for binaries than is in Configuration.tmpl) adds work for every
    person creating a source OR binary release: the need to edit the
    Configuration to include the canonical module list (as well as the
    compilation settings, for a binary release).

>                                                            Instead of
>"oh, edit Configuration if you want to then compile" we have "oh, copy
>this to this then edit if you want to".

    No, it changes to "copy this to that and make sure it's right for
    your platform."

>                                         First, the default Configuration
>file should never be broken for any OS unless they have really bastard
>compilers, etc.

    Mm-hmm.  The operative word here is "should."  How many PRs have we
    received the fixes to which involved telling the submitter to change
    the compilation settings?  At a WAG, dozens.  Why?  Probably in many
    cases because they used the default Configuration we supplied, which
    *wasn't* right for their platforms.

>                 Secondly, I don't see the distinction between the two as
>anything but petty semantics; I don't see anything worth making life more
>difficult by not including Configuration.

    Your opinion.  Mine differs; I'm willing to make my life a little
    more difficult (though this doesn't contribute to that) to improve
    quality and lessen violations of the Principle of Least
    Astonishment for our users.

    #ken    P-)}

View raw message