Date: Mon, 2 Feb 1998 23:46:55 -0500 (Eastern Standard Time)
From: rasmus@lerdorf.on.ca (Rasmus Lerdorf)
To: new-httpd@apache.org
Subject: Re: apache/linux modules
In-Reply-To: <199802030200.VAA07667@devsys.jaguNET.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.WNT.3.96.980202234105.-71251I-100000@shell.lerdorf.on.ca>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: new-httpd-owner@apache.org
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: new-httpd@apache.org

> > As you imagine, a badly written configure.in set can become scary... I am
> > still not convinced, because the above line could have only two arguments.
> > 
> > You'renot gonna make me stop by showing me a broken configure and telling
> > me how hard is to work with...
> > 
> 
> The vast majority of projects using autoconf are just as "broken."
> Saying "Oh yeah, well that's bad, but the problem is that the configure.in
> is broken" doesn't alleviate any of that concern. My attitude against
> autoconf was born out of years of having to deal with it and it being
> more hassle that it was worth. Once we start living in a perfect world,
> then I'll change my mind.

I have to agree with the autoconf supporters here.  You have some minor
quirks with the PHP autoconf setup.  I'll get those addressed before PHP
3.0.  But I would definitely prefer to be able to tell a user to do a

  ./configure --with-mod-php

tp build Apache, for example, instead of trying to tell the user to edit
the Apache Configuration file and to go to the bottom of the file and add 

  AddModule modules/extra/mod_php3.o

With Apache 1.2.x it is a complete and utter nightmare.  Paul's .module
stuff saved my life and reduces the manual edit to one line.  I would
prefer to have it down to no manual edits.

-Rasmus