httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Ralf S. Engelschall" <>
Subject Re: Suggestion: shtool
Date Tue, 27 Apr 1999 13:35:57 GMT

In article <3725A8DB.C0FA9690@Golux.Com> you wrote:
> Ralf S. Engelschall wrote:
>> Interesting: In the past we had a consensus that whenever we have someone in
>> the AG which can maintains XYZ for the AG it's ok to include or use XYZ.
> Only partly true.  'Include or use XYZ as part of the Apache
> project' is more correct.  Otherwise there are synchronisation
> issues, which is why FastCGI was dropped and mod_rewrite went
> through the pangs it did.  You may or may not have a different
> version of mod_rewrite on your site, Ralf, but it's the one in
> the Apache repository that's used by Apache.

Hmmm... mod_fastcgi wasn't dropped because a sync was an unacceptable problem
in _general_, IMHO it was dropped because the AG had no member who was able to
do (or accepted to do) the sync all the time. Sure, things like mod_rewrite
were exclusively contributed to the AG (don't panic, I've not even a copy of
the old tarballs myself here on the disk ;). But the reason why mod_rewrite
was finally accepted were also related to the fact with RSE someone _inside_
the AG was able to maintain it. Perhaps my recognition of the old discussions
are wrong here, but I though it was more important to have an own maintainer
than an exclusive right on the software.

At least from a technical point of view it should be this way IMHO.  That's
why I still don't understand why it's such a _big_ problem for some of us that
shtool is an "external" package. But ok, it's not important, because the
discussion already showed that too much of us dislike the (also technical)
intentions of shtool. So it doesn't matter...

                                       Ralf S. Engelschall

View raw message