httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jim Jagielski <...@jaguNET.com>
Subject Re: [PATCH] Configuration (3/4): APACI Makefile for src/Configure
Date Tue, 01 Dec 1998 14:43:28 GMT
Ralf S. Engelschall wrote:
> 
> 
>   o APACI's configure script is enhanced to allow a --with-template=FILE
>     option. The default for FILE is src/Configuration.tmpl. 
> 
>   o the src/Configure script is renamed to src/Setup (don't know whether this
>     is a good name, it's not important) and APACI's configure script now calls
>     src/Setup instead of src/Configure.
> 
>   o a new wrapper script src/Configure is created which provides
>     again the -file FILE option. FILE here defaults to Configuration.  It does
>     nothing more than running APACI's configure script with this file by using
>     --with-template.
> 

As I understand this, this means that running Configure will actually
run configure?

I'm not sure if I think this is a Good Idea. In fact, I think it's a Bad
Idea. One reason is that for people (and platforms/OSs) that have never
run configure, they will now be doing that, and this will cause problems.
Why? Configure was "designed" at the beginning to use the base, low
level capabilities of the System 7 shell. And it's been held to that
limitation since then. Sure, that's maybe stupid, and it results in
code that's not as elegant, but the desire was always that it runs
on as many OSs and with as many shells as possible. configure, AFAIK,
does not have that limitation, and maybe has not been so rigorously(sp?)
looked at to "make sure" it complies. So for some platforms, Configure
may work fine, but configure will barf, and forcing Configure to run
configure opens up problems.

Secondly, the whole idea of configure was to provide a front end to
Configure. But now this is being totally reversed. Instead, Configure
is a front end to configure which drives Setup. Why is this better
than configure driving Configure?

I think I'd have to +1 Randy's and veto this one, unfortunately...
I think that the compatibility problems and the increased "layers"
and "cmplexity" aren't worth it, and provide no real benefit.
Some would argue that it's also a way of "forcing" configure to
be the official build suite, with no discussion or group consensus
in the matter as well :) :)
-- 
===========================================================================
   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"

Mime
View raw message