httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Marc Slemko <ma...@worldgate.com>
Subject Re: [PATCH] Configure to say how to make Configuration
Date Mon, 01 Dec 1997 17:30:45 GMT
On Mon, 1 Dec 1997, Rodent of Unusual Size wrote:

> >From the fingers of Paul Sutton flowed the following:
> >
> >I think that
> >
> >  a.  All binary kits ought to have the same set of modules, barring
> >      exceptional circumstances on some OSes.
> >
> >  b.  The Configuration file ought to be present in both source and
> >      binary distributions containing the set of modules that are
> >      built into the binary version
> >
> >Thus we have consistency between OSes, and if the user downloads a source
> >kit and does "./Configure; make" they end up with something functionally
> >identical to downloading a binary for that OS. Consistency is good.
> 
>     I go along with most of this, but I suggest this as an alternative:
> 
>     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.  

>     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.  Instead of
"oh, edit Configuration if you want to then compile" we have "oh, copy
this to this then edit if you want to".  First, the default Configuration
file should never be broken for any OS unless they have really bastard
compilers, etc.  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.


Mime
View raw message