httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Eli Marmor <>
Subject Re: mod_ssl (was: How to Add a Module to Apache)
Date Tue, 14 Dec 1999 15:17:45 GMT
Scott Hess wrote:
(follows my answer)

1. As I already noted, it is off-topic for this mailing list. This
   thread is specific for mod_ssl, and should be discussed in its
   mailing list. When I respond to your message, I feel a little
   like a spammer, who forces many subscribers to read things which
   are not relevant for them. This is why the thread was began at
   that mailing list, and the forward to here was not done by me.
   I didn't bring it to here, so I ask anybody who respond to do it
   through the original list, and/or my personal e-mail address.

2. The current discussion, at least for the last 48 hours, is not
   "how to create a merged source tree", but "how to make the
   different patch script (e.g. UNIX, Windows), compatible with
   each other", so the source trees created by them will be equal
   (to see the last development in this field, look at:

3. Even the original discussion (about migrating to a distribution
   of a merged source tree), is only semantical. It's like when
   A+B=C, and A is known, and the argument is whether to supply B
   and get C as a result of a '+' operation, or supply C and get B
   as a result of a '-' operation. Both operations can even be
   automated, by complex scripts. Yes, C is what most users are
   interested in (and not B), but this was not the main motivation;
   The main difference between the '-' operation and the '+', is
   that it is a nightmare to support '+' under different platforms.
   Windows, for example: Any change which is done in "configure"
   (you see?  It's not only off-topic, but even deals with specific
   files of mod_ssl!), which is a shell script for UNIX, must be
   replicated in "configure.bat", which is written in a different
   language (perl), and then the updated perl-script must be tested
   under Windows. Moreover, to use this "configure.bat", a naive
   and poor user must download perl, patch.exe, and other packages.
   Using your words: "Keeping two development branches in sync is
   painful", I'm convinced that you will agree with me when you
   will know the full details.

4. You don't have to teach me the pain of maintaining patches,
   either as deltas/diffs/pathces, or as two parallel versions. I
   have too much experience with this, in dozens of projects I did
   in the last years, including a project with hundreds of patches
   to Motif (since 1.0, through all the minor versions, to 1.2.5),
   and including xterm (again, hundreds of patches, though many
   versions, etc.).

5. If you are so concerned about having two versions, please vote
   for including EAPI patches in 1.3.10. It doesn't break anything
   (because it is disabled by default and ifdefed), and it doesn't
   have anything to do with crypto. These patches are used for
   various purposes, and nobody should suffer only because some
   people (about 100,000, according to some statistics) use it as
   hooks for mod_ssl. Even when hooks were disallowed, it referred
   only to hooks which their only purpose was crypto, otherwise -
   even the standard Apache was considered as crypto...  (but

Scott Hess wrote:
> Eli Marmor <> wrote:
> > I only thought that it would be easier to use "diff" to show the
> > differences, than to use complex scripts (not only "patch") to apply
> > the patches. Don't forget, Windows users must download many tools for
> > any simple patch script, such as perl, patch.exe, etc.
> As you noted earlier, all things considered the end-user has a lot of pain
> applying the patches, and developers can generally handle diff'ing things
> with little or no pain.
> Unfortunately, it's the developers which cause progress in Apache, not the
> end users, at least directly.  If there are two Apache distributions, they
> _will_ be out of sync with each other.  Developers will generally only
> patch the version they are using.  If all patches are required to apply
> cleanly to both distributions, then less development will feed back into
> Apache.
> Beyond that, I think you overestimate the ease of using diff to show
> differences.  Keeping two development branches in sync is painful in
> proportion to the square of the number of expected differences, at minimum.
> If you've ever been on a project trying to do that, you even start to
> wonder if the pain is proportional to 2 to the power of the number of
> expected differences...
> Later,
> scott

Eli Marmor

View raw message