httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From (Ralf S. Engelschall)
Subject Re: [CONTRIB] Autoconf Interface Emulation
Date Sun, 01 Mar 1998 18:35:05 GMT

In article <> you wrote:
> Ralf S. Engelschall wrote:
>> In article <> you wrote:
>> > Nope. Not for 1.3. We all agreed about that.
>> > -1
>> Have you really looked into the code, Jim?

> Nope... I vetoed it for concept. If it was earlier in the 1.3 cycle
> and there wasn't such a debate on the whole [cC]onfigure stuff,
> then I would be much more open. I'll be honest: I think it's
> a neat concept. In fact, I'd _like_ to +1 it. But I can't.
> It's a new concept, and a new feature and just doesn't belong
> this late in the game for a 1.3.0 release. Since the odds are
> good that a 1.3.1 will be in the future, I think this would be
> a neat addition for that (since a 1.3.1 will be much more than
> the simple 1.3.0->1.3.1 would make you believe).

The past has showed that we can expect at least 1.3.0, 1.3.1, 1.3.2, 1.3.3 and
1.3.4 and a timerange of approximately 2-6 months from 1.3.0 on. This is the
reason I wrote the stuff, because we both have to do a lot more on the 1.3
branch and 1.3 will be out for a long time.

> So let me clarify: -1 for 1.3.0, +1 (concept) for 1.3.x/2.x

Please keep in mind, Jim, that this is _only_ for 1.3, because for 2.0 we want 
to use either a completely different configuration scheme or at least the GNU
Autoconf toolkit itself. I wrote it _only_ for 1.3 _to fill the gap_ between
the current approach and the 2.0 approach.

So, I personally think it should be _either_ taken in _immediately before
1.3.X_ (including 1.3.0) or forget completely as part of the official
distribution (Of course, I personally won't move it /dev/null, I then will
release it separately). Because its _only_ for 1.3 and hence should be in the
release _from the first step_ or never in list of 1.3 releases.  Then not even
in 1.3.1 or 1.3.2, because I think this doesn't make sense to incorporate it

I must say that I don't see why my stuff is really such sensible. It does not
change any existing configuration stuff, it just replaces the still obsolete
top-level Makefile with a fresh and Autoconf-style interface. Keep in mind
that the src/Configure* stuff is for configuring the sources according to
system dependencies and user selections. It does not configure the
installation. Here the top-level Makefile was choosen for. But the current one
is both not really useable by the average builder nor follows it any commonly
known conventions. My stuff just replaces this and thus completes the Apache
distribution by adding a complete configurable installation. 

*Again*: It doesn't duplicate what src/Configur* does. It completes it! While
src/Configur* is for configuring the sources my top-level
Makefile+configuration is for configuring the remaining stuff: The
installation of the Apache package.

On the other hand, my personal option is the following: When we don't like my
Autoconf-emulation-stuff, then we consequently should remove or at least
enhance the existing Makefile+src/helpers/InstallApache stuff. Because either
we provide a complete way to install Apache cleanly and flexibly or we provide
no such scheme. Only the half way is bogus.

Hmmmm... perhaps others like my stuff a little bit more 
by seeing the actual goal I tried to address ;-)

                                       Ralf S. Engelschall

View raw message