Message-ID: <009801bf375d$f485aa30$0a1aa8c0@jetnet.co.uk>
From: "David Reid" <abb37@dial.pipex.com>
To: <new-httpd@apache.org>
References: <199911251548.KAA17052@devsys.jaguNET.com>
Subject: Re: Pause to Consider
Date: Thu, 25 Nov 1999 15:55:46 -0000
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: new-httpd-owner@apache.org
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: new-httpd@apache.org

Maybe then we should focus on the end result?  We all know what we want so
we just need tools that deliver the ideal?

I don't really mind I just wanted to voice my concerns, which I've done, so
full speed ahead Capt Ahab!

d.
----- Original Message -----
From: Jim Jagielski <jim@devsys.jaguNET.com>
To: <new-httpd@apache.org>
Sent: 25 November 1999 15:48
Subject: Re: Pause to Consider


> Ralf S. Engelschall wrote:
> >
> > Yes, how do you plan to address the apxs issue? That is, how to you plan
to
> > integrate your Autoconf approach with the functionality of the old
"build
> > modules externally [via apxs]"? Currently it looks to me you've still
not
> > thought about this, because you have direct references between your
Autoconf
> > stuff and the modules (you do a "cat *.m4" mainly).  This breaks for
modules
> > which should be configured and built externally.
> >
>
> I think that maintaining 'apxs' "as in" should NOT be a goal. Everything
> is up for grabs. There might be a better way than adjusting the entire
> build sequence to maintain apxs. I say we maintain the end-result of
> what apxs accomplishes, but leave apxs out of the picture.
>
> --
>
===========================================================================
>    Jim Jagielski   [|]   jim@jaguNET.com   [|]   http://www.jaguNET.com/
>                 "Are you suggesting coconuts migrate??"