httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Ben Laurie <...@algroup.co.uk>
Subject Re: Suggestion: shtool
Date Mon, 26 Apr 1999 17:51:22 GMT
Ralf S. Engelschall wrote:
> 
> In article <19990422183722.A88871@engelschall.com> you wrote:
> 
> > [...]
> > At least for Apache 1.4/2.0 it sounds reasonable to use shtool, of course :)
> 
> Although I'm rather sure Jim will not change his general opinion on shtool ;),
> here is the final note at least for the group that shtool 1.1.0 was released
> today. It's a complete overhauled version for which I've spent 25 extra hours
> over the weekend. It now even includes a complete manual page covering all
> tools and options, it contains a small GNU autoconf environment for building
> and installing, I've cleaned up and merged the ingredients, added a few more
> goodies from my script archive, etc. So, at least those interested in such
> tools (especially for other Open Source packages) should look at it and take
> again my suggestion that for Apache 1.4/2.0 one should consider replacing most
> of our current scripts with shtool calls.

I still don't think that a single script is an advantage, modules exist
for a reason. Also, I totally agree with the comment about libtool - if
it works its great, but if it doesn't it seems to be totally impossible
to fix (and, in my experience, it doesn't). I haven't looked at shtool,
but the fact it is a single script does not bode well.

I'm also not keen on relying on externally maintained packages, any more
than is necessary, even if it does mean a little more work for us. That
is, unless they are _extremely_ widely used (i.e. already installed
nearly everywhere).

Cheers,

Ben.

--
http://www.apache-ssl.org/ben.html

"My grandfather once told me that there are two kinds of people: those
who work and those who take the credit. He told me to try to be in the
first group; there was less competition there."
     - Indira Gandhi

Mime
View raw message