Return-Path: Delivered-To: new-httpd-archive@hyperreal.org Received: (qmail 5093 invoked by uid 6000); 12 Jul 1999 01:27:51 -0000 Received: (qmail 5068 invoked from network); 12 Jul 1999 01:27:45 -0000 Received: from fwns1d.raleigh.ibm.com (HELO fwns1.raleigh.ibm.com) (204.146.167.235) by taz.hyperreal.org with SMTP; 12 Jul 1999 01:27:45 -0000 Received: from rtpmail03.raleigh.ibm.com (rtpmail03.raleigh.ibm.com [9.37.172.47]) by fwns1.raleigh.ibm.com (8.9.0/8.9.0/RTP-FW-1.2) with ESMTP id VAA27756 for ; Sun, 11 Jul 1999 21:27:41 -0400 Received: from chosondo.raleigh.ibm.com (chosondo.raleigh.ibm.com [9.37.73.195]) by rtpmail03.raleigh.ibm.com (8.8.5/8.8.5/RTP-ral-1.1) with ESMTP id VAA24754 for ; Sun, 11 Jul 1999 21:27:43 -0400 Date: Sun, 11 Jul 1999 21:15:35 -0400 (EDT) From: Ryan Bloom To: new-httpd@apache.org Subject: Re: pthreads in apr ... In-Reply-To: <199907112314.TAA12137@devsys.jaguNET.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: new-httpd-owner@apache.org Precedence: bulk Reply-To: new-httpd@apache.org Status: O I guess I wasn't clear. I was replying to the idea that the configure script for apr would interfere with the configure for Apache. I said it wouldn't, and then I said it wouldn't until Apache-2.0 had an autoconf build script. I was not suggesting, nor do I believe, that work should stop on 2.0 until autoconf configure scripts are written. Ryan On Sun, 11 Jul 1999, Jim Jagielski wrote: > Rasmus Lerdorf wrote: > > > > > I don't think how Apache is [cC]onfigured should hold anyone up as > > > far as working on 2.0. We've been able to handle just about any > > > configuration desire or need up to now, and I tend to think that > > > we'll continue to be able to do that. Just that the idea of a "total > > > rewrite from the ground up" stalled development of 2.0, so does > > > the idea that "we need to scrap what we have for autoconf." I'm > > > not saying that anything one way or another re: autoconf, just > > > stating the facts :) > > > > Yikes! I would really really hate to see the current configuration scheme > > migrate into the 2.0 release. Perhaps enough that I would sit down and > > get an automake/libtool/autoconf system up and going. > > > > Well, my point was that I didn't think it made sense for people > to be idle because "we didn't have autoconf yet". If someone > provides a drop-in replacement of autoconf/et.al. that works > then I'm all for that. > > -- > =========================================================================== > 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" > _______________________________________________________________________ Ryan Bloom rbb@raleigh.ibm.com 4205 S Miami Blvd RTP, NC 27709 It's a beautiful sight to see good dancers doing simple steps. It's a painful sight to see beginners doing complicated patterns.