httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jim Jagielski <...@jaguNET.com>
Subject Re: apache/linux modules
Date Wed, 04 Feb 1998 03:15:12 GMT
Rasmus Lerdorf wrote:
> 
> > Thanks, sorry about the thread. I was just shocked about the fact that
> > from all big free projects out there, apache is resisting autoconf like no
> > one else... :-)
> 
> Despite Jim's rumblings, even he is not going to block a move to autoconf
> for 2.0.

Course not... anyone who spends any time on new-httpd knows that
I speak my mind because I want to make sure that issues are known
and addressed. The only stupid decision, is the one made rashly
and without fore-thought. I make people think :)

> I think the only argument you will get is about adopting
> autoconf for 1.3.

Now that, I will block :)

> PHP runs on all the same platforms that Apache runs on except OS/2.  (Yes,
> Jim, even AUX)

I know. I'm running it now :)

> and I have yet to have a serious complaint from someone.
> Perhaps this is because everyone else uses autoconf and people on weird
> platforms already know the limitations of autoconf on their platform and
> thus don't send me a bug report.  But that as well is a plus for autoconf.
> 

That's the key... Those who've used autoconf on their systems know
what to expect and know how to "work around" it. As much as I
grumble, I pretty much know that after ./configure, I usually need
to scan through and hand edit at least config.h and all the Makefiles. :)
In fact, I think most people do that anyway. It's just that attitude
that "autoconf will do everything you want and never go wrong" is
what gets me more than anything else. When people start off from
that direction, I bark; If they start off with "you know, autoconf
can figure out a lot of stuff and maybe we can use some of that
functionality", I just yip :)

Only someone who has had to deal with this kind of stuff can appreciate
my concerns. But it's unfair to simply disregard them, which I
don't think anyone is really doing.

Same may recall that I made sure that Configure had that "PARANOID"
mode that described what was being done when Configure was "controlled"
by a module. Obviously, this came from my background that "I'm gonna
need to do some hand-editing and I want to make sure I know what this
[Cc]onfigure script is doing, and where"... On my FreeBSD machines,
which I try to keep as vanilla as possible, I let configure do it's
stuff with little regard because I know FreeBSD has a large enough
base that "it'll most likely do what's right." On other systems,
I watch veeerrrrry closely :) :)

-- 
====================================================================
      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