Message-ID: <19981202152805.A11758@engelschall.com>
Date: Wed, 2 Dec 1998 15:28:05 +0100
From: "Ralf S. Engelschall" <rse@engelschall.com>
To: new-httpd@apache.org
Subject: Re: Configure vs. configure: Please read
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Organization: Engelschall, Germany.
Sender: new-httpd-owner@apache.org
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: new-httpd@apache.org


In article <199812021358.IAA28746@devsys.jaguNET.com> you wrote:
> Ralf S. Engelschall wrote:
>> In article <x7n257mlh5.fsf@montana.covalent.net> you wrote:
>> 
>> > I'm sure a few folks are getting tired of this debate... Please give
>> > some feedback and hopefully we can bury this.
>> 
>> > Issues:
>> >  * Confusion as to which method to use
>> 
>> My opinion: One one single method, yes. So I support your merging idea in
>> general. The difference is just that some people use this method as
>> "./Configure -file" and others with APACI options.

> I agree. I just don't know if the 1.3.x tree is the place to make
> this change. No matter which one we choose, it causes changes for
> half the people out there. And a 1.3.3->1.3.4 version bump doesn't
> seem the right for it.

That's another point, yes. But it was not my idea to do those changes now. It
was mainly the idea of those you dislike APACI and that's not me... ;-)

>> Sure, but the only "advantage" of APACI for our "fighting-against-APACI" guys
>> is the installation procecure (for some of us not even that ;-). 

> Well, I'm not really fighting against APACI. I'm "fighting" (or actually
> just reminding) for the fact that there ARE people who are using
> the old method, are more than happy using the old method and will
> resist using the new "command-line oriented" new method. If './configure'
> all by itself would work the same way as './Configure' all by itself
> (read and follow the Configuration file, with the same paths) then
> IMO all arguments go away. Same if './configure -file Conf.file'
> worked the same as './Configure -file Conf.file'

Sure, that's the intent, as least I understand it this way. And any merge
(independ ob how it's implemented) should provide exactly this, yes.

> Question: This is kind of touchy, but when have I let that stop me? :)
>           At what point does a file no longer "warrant" the "Written by
>     <name>" line, esp when it's part of the official Apache
>     source? Awhile ago I added some "acknowledgments" to the
>     helper files, but I did that as a direct reaction to such
>     acknowledgements in other scripts and files. I'm going
>     to reverse these, since this doesn't seem to be in keeping
>     with the "group" mentality. CHANGES and the CVS logs already
>     do that.

Some acknowledgements are fine, I think. This way one knows who to blame or
credit. We have lot of them in the source tree, not only in the scripts.  So,
I personally would keep them...
                                       Ralf S. Engelschall
                                       rse@engelschall.com
                                       www.engelschall.com