Return-Path: Delivered-To: new-httpd-archive@hyperreal.org Received: (qmail 12867 invoked by uid 6000); 9 Nov 1998 20:02:02 -0000 Received: (qmail 12581 invoked from network); 9 Nov 1998 20:01:56 -0000 Received: from devsys.jagunet.com (206.156.208.6) by taz.hyperreal.org with SMTP; 9 Nov 1998 20:01:56 -0000 Received: (from jim@localhost) by devsys.jaguNET.com (8.9.1a/jag-2.5) id PAA22572 for new-httpd@apache.org; Mon, 9 Nov 1998 15:01:50 -0500 (EST) From: Jim Jagielski Message-Id: <199811092001.PAA22572@devsys.jaguNET.com> Subject: Re: cvs commit: apache-1.3/src CHANGES To: new-httpd@apache.org Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1998 15:01:50 -0500 (EST) In-Reply-To: <364747B5.A42A95AD@Golux.Com> from "Rodent of Unusual Size" at Nov 9, 98 02:51:17 pm X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL25] Content-Type: text Sender: new-httpd-owner@apache.org Precedence: bulk Reply-To: new-httpd@apache.org In many people's minds, I think, I might be the loudest "autoconf sucks" proponent ;) I have nothing against autoconf per se. In fact, when done correctly, it's a great advantage. When done "incorrectly" it's a major pain and the end result is needing to hand-edit a config.h file anyway, so what's the big advantage... I do not know how to build an autoconf from scratch. I do, however, know how to adjust them to work with strange systems. If 2.0 uses autoconf then I plan on doing that. Rodent of Unusual Size wrote: > > Rasmus Lerdorf wrote: > > > > I am a big fan of autoconf'ing Apache. > > So am I. > > > However, this has very little to > > do with APACI. APACI is not autoconf. APACI is a lookalike script which > > mimics the configure script which autoconf generates. > > I disagree. APACI wouldn't exist if there weren't an > "Autoconf Now!" party. :-) > > > This is not an argument either way. Just clarifying that APACI does not > > mean autoconf and as far as I am concerned none of this APACI stuff should > > survive in the 2.0 tree. It should be a real autoconf system. > > Agreed. I just find it odd that the people who have worked so > hard on providing this functionality (mostly but not entirely Ralf) > haven't devoted at least a little effort to getting the real thing > to work in the 2.0 tree -- or at least a skeleton. They clearly > have a deep understanding of how autoconf works, which is much > more than I have -- so I hope they'll use some of that expertise > to make the 2.0 autoconf environment as excellent as possible. > I'd rather see the effort go there than into APACI. MHO, though. > -- =========================================================================== Jim Jagielski ||| jim@jaguNET.com ||| http://www.jaguNET.com/ "That's no ordinary rabbit... that's the most foul, cruel and bad-tempered rodent you ever laid eyes on"