httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jim Jagielski <>
Subject Re: apache/linux modules
Date Wed, 04 Feb 1998 03:02:23 GMT
Cristian Gafton wrote:
> There have been arguments for both autoconf features and current
> Configure. There are people defending Congigure desperately, because it is
> their little ugly-script baby. There are people backing up autoconf for
> it's elegance and easy of use, for numerous cases where it proved to be
> time-saving and easy to adapt to major changes within a large project.

Sorry. Next time get your facts straight. I am NOT defending
Configure because of the "little ugly-script baby". Why not
actually trying READING my posts to get why I am not so much defending
Configure and explaining my dislike for configure. But, of course,
you won't. I love people who "discuss" by not even bothering to
listen because it wastes precious time.

And it's not even my freakin script... I took over hacking it when
it became unworkable. I even made the GuessOS stuff as config.guess
compatible as possible so if we did go to some form of autoconf,
we would have a _path_ to go that route. Same with the naming
of some #defines as well.

But, of course, I don't know why I'm bothering typing anything. It
will fall on deaf ears. Real world hassles with autoconf mean
nothing, because, well, it would get in the way, and we can't
have facts intrude on our discussions, can we.

In any case, this is all on the table for 2.0... Even though
I'm not from Missouri, "show me." 

      Jim Jagielski            |       jaguNET Access Services           |
            "Look at me! I'm wearing a cardboard belt!"

View raw message