httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From (Ralf S. Engelschall)
Subject Forget it (was Re: [CONTRIB] Autoconf Interface Emulation)
Date Mon, 02 Mar 1998 13:58:16 GMT

In article <34FAA51C.67AC6B1B@Golux.Com> you wrote:
> Ralf S. Engelschall wrote:

>> Seems (perhaps because of the tarfile) the opinions are given without deep
>> code review.

> When objections are made on conceptual grounds, code review is
> irrelevant.  If people veto the concept, throwing code at the argument
> is less useful than trying to convince them that the concept is
> viable.  If the only way to do that is by using code, then the
> concept is either not being conveyed correctly or else is not
> well understood even by its proponent.

Ok, ok, forget it. Although I still think you intermix the fact that we vetoed
against the GNU AutoConf toolkit (see STATUS in apache-2.0) and that we didn't
vetoed against the way it is used (=interface), I don't want to fight for
something when there is no base for it to life. 

> Saying that a proposal will replace one undocumented wart with a
> different (and possibly still undocumented) one does not convince
> me that the effort is well spent.  If the new wart is emulating
> an interface that has already been vetoed for the current release,
> I think it starts with a handicap.

Please show me where we vetoed for the Autoconf _interface_ in the past.
Either I'm totally stupid now or missed some important facts (which can be
possible). We vetoed against the toolkit and its system checks, etc. But we
never said that the "configure --prefix..." interface is muck.

> So..  -1 from me on doing this for 1.3.0, and potentially for
> 1.3.*.  A new installation of Apache on UNIX is quite simple.

<grin> You are kidding, Ken. For _us_ it is simple, of course.  For Joe
Average it isn't and never wasn't. And I still think Joe Average would gain
much from a "configure --prefix ..." interface to build and install the hole
package... Not to mention the various OS vendors who package Apache...

> An
> upgrade to an existing installation is considerably more complex.
> I do not see how this will improve either condition.

> If you want to improve the installation process, I suggest that
> you focus on a tool to aid converting an existing installation's
> *.conf and Configuration files - that's the part that requires the
> most manual intervention.

Correct, yes, this would be the next step. But why should I start with this
when we still haven't a straight forward and working way of installing the
whole package? Hmmm... we still even haven't moved the stuff from access.conf
and srm.conf to httpd.conf as discussed in the past. And Lars' very good
httpd.conf stuff was also not taken in. And, and, and... 

Either way: Three vetoes are enough, I give up contributing this stuff for
inclusion because I really want to avoid fights. If the majority really thinks
it is not worth to have it then forget it, please. I really don't want to
fight any more with arguments now. But if this issue is already such
complicated then it seems we will get more horrible debates when Apache 2.0 is
really started.  Because it seems there is heavy resistance to the GNU-style
configuration approach which (IMHO) _is_ a really good approach because all of
my personal packages used and gained from it in the past and the same would
apply to Apache...

So, let us forget this topic for the official 1.3 distribution now, please.
I'll put it onto my personal webserver for those users who really like it and
thus there is no more need to fight... 

                                       Ralf S. Engelschall

View raw message