httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Ralf S. Engelschall" <>
Subject Re: Apache 2000, err Apache 2.0 gets real
Date Sun, 01 Aug 1999 16:06:08 GMT

In article <> you wrote:
> Ralf S. Engelschall wrote:
>> So I've to admit that I still don't see a real reason why the ASF should still
>> create a package out of the helper scripts and ignore to use GNU shtool
> Maybe just because we're already using it and because it works
> and because we can provide it to others, rather than (OK, I'll
> admit it) saying "Oh hell, why use what we have, let's simply
> drop that and use shtool for some unknown reason except for
> the fact that it's a GNU tool."

You shouldn't use shtool because it's a GNU tool.  You should use it if you
feel it's a useful tool. That's all.  But ok, when the argument is "we're
already used to our scripts and know they work correctly", that's fully
acceptable to me. Then there is no reason to use shtool, of course. 

> If _we_ can provide it, then why not? Not to be political or
> parochial, but why should we favor a GNU package over an ASF one?

Ohhh..... seems like you're thinking the ASF is the ultimate glory group.  I
think neither GNU nor ASF are such glory groups that they can use such an NIH
argument (that's what I dislike on RMS, too). In general one should use the
_BEST_ tool (at least as long as license issues are no problem, of course).
But ok, I cannot change this. I've to accept your opinion here.

> Considering that the helper scripts have been most likely used by
> everyone who's built Apache, I think we have proven that they
> work and are pretty portable. So why not let them be another
> package or project under ASF?

Yeah ok, go for it when you're really convinced this is reasonable.  I've
tried to explain that IMHO it isn't really reasonable. More I cannot do, of
course. I'll accept it when the ASF publishes such a package.
                                       Ralf S. Engelschall

View raw message