Return-Path: Delivered-To: new-httpd-archive@hyperreal.org Received: (qmail 7814 invoked by uid 6000); 2 Dec 1998 00:31:17 -0000 Received: (qmail 7801 invoked from network); 2 Dec 1998 00:31:15 -0000 Received: from ns1.covalent.net (HELO zuul.covalent.net) (208.214.56.2) by taz.hyperreal.org with SMTP; 2 Dec 1998 00:31:15 -0000 Received: from montana.covalent.net (montana.covalent.net [207.91.27.101]) by zuul.covalent.net (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id SAA52640 for ; Tue, 1 Dec 1998 18:31:13 -0600 (CST) (envelope-from randy@Covalent.NET) Received: (from randy@localhost) by montana.covalent.net (8.9.1/8.8.7) id SAA29361; Tue, 1 Dec 1998 18:33:11 -0600 (CST) (envelope-from randy) To: new-httpd@apache.org Subject: Configure vs. configure: Please read Mime-Version: 1.0 (generated by tm-edit 7.108) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII From: Randy Terbush Date: 01 Dec 1998 18:33:10 -0600 Message-ID: Lines: 42 X-Mailer: Gnus v5.5/XEmacs 20.4 - "Diamond" Sender: new-httpd-owner@apache.org Precedence: bulk Reply-To: new-httpd@apache.org 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 * No toplevel Makefile created by Configure * code duplication * portability The approach I am contemplating to this is to move the existing APACI 'configure' into the src/ directory as 'Configure' and merge the needed bits from the old 'Configure' into the APACI 'configure' now named 'Configure'. Replace the APACI 'configure' in the toplevel directory with a wrapper that essentially is: "#!/bin/sh . src/Configure" I then see using 'basename' to determine how the script was called and emulate the 2 different behaviors from one script. This should solve the toplevel Makefile issue, code duplication issue and will address portability concerns about APACI. The confusion issue is going to need to be resolved by the group through attitude and documentation. I do think that we need to start encouraging people to use APACI as it solves a few issues that the old Configure does not. I might point out that I was one of the people that voted against including APACI in 1.3 originally, but now that we have it, I think we need to start taking advantage of it. Personal issues: * It is not that important to me that Configure creates a toplevel Makefile. * I don't have time to do this if there is not support to commit it. If I get 3 quick +1s on this, I'll start working tonight. -Randy