httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Marc Slemko <ma...@worldgate.com>
Subject Re: cvs commit: apache-1.3/src CHANGES
Date Mon, 09 Nov 1998 20:43:53 GMT
On Mon, 9 Nov 1998, Rodent of Unusual Size wrote:

> 'Way back when, APACI was floated as an autoconf-like thing
> for 1.* for those who wanted to use it, since we weren't
> prepared to autoconf-ify the 1.* process.  It was *not*
> supposed to be a replacement for src/Configure, but an
> alternative for those USERS who felt more comfortable
> with the autoconf Tao and didn't want to wait until 2.0. <g>
> The group made the conscious decision to NOT do autoconf for
> 1.*.

I really have two main problems with it.  First, 1.3 really isn't the
place to replace the Configure interface.  With that in mind, this should
have waited (as I said all along, but the "oh, it is just an optional
addon" argument wno out) until 2.0 anyway.

Second, there are various policy decisions being made there that have not
been discussed and I really don't think reflect what people want.  eg. the
default path layout is horrendous and confusing.  Again, saying "oh, but
there is --compat so it is really just the same" doesn't cut it.  I can't
count the number of people who have been very confused about why the heck
there are two different interfaces and why one interface magically does
all sorts of things like change the default port for no reason, use
completely different and insane paths that are not appropriate for _any_
system, etc.


> 
> Somehow, APACI has turned into something much more than
> its original proposal, and appears to have exceeded its
> charter -- to the extent that configuration fixes (like
> this suExec thing and mod_perl) are being made to work
> with APACI at the expense of working with src/Configure.
> 
> I do not question the value of APACI for those who use it
> (I don't, at least not yet), but I'm annoyed that somehow
> it seems to be becoming the de facto build method when the
> group decision was made to *not* do autoconf as the
> default until 2.0.  Unless the *group* has silently adopted
> it as the default, I would prefer that we stick by our
> original decision.
> 
> It's interesting to note that none of the APACI/autoconf
> stuff has been done in the apache-2.0 tree, where we agreed
> autoconf would be the Tao.
> 
> Oh, well.
> 
> #ken	P-)}
> 
> Ken Coar                    <http://Web.Golux.Com/coar/>
> Apache Group member         <http://www.apache.org/>
> "Apache Server for Dummies" <http://Web.Golux.Com/coar/ASFD/>
> 


Mime
View raw message