httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Ralf S. Engelschall" <...@engelschall.com>
Subject Re: apache2-ng7
Date Thu, 06 Jan 2000 11:10:48 GMT

In article <200001052302.SAA10419@devsys.jaguNET.com> you wrote:
> Ralf S. Engelschall wrote:
>> 
>> Sorry, Jim, my flair for English seems to be not sufficient to actually
>> decide whether you say this serious or ironic, but if you say it ironic
>> keep in mind that my above statement wasn't against ASF - it was against
>> any license with less restrictions, be it the Apache license or just
>> some other BSD-style license. So don't feel attacked, please. OTOH if
>> you say the above serious, I think such a non-technical decision would
>> be more than silly, because as I tried to explain: there has to be
>> no non-technical reason to not use shtool (or any other packages of
>> the Autoconf area), because at least for shtool you can get a special
>> license condition which can make you more happy if you're still not
>> happy enough through the existing exclusion clause.
> 
> Ahhh... I see where you got confused. My point was that with the licensing
> of shtools, it's most likely best that we keep our efforts on what we
> already have (the tools in helpers) since that way we can add/adjust
> them however we want without worrying about any problems. 

But with a special Apache-specific exception clause which allows you to
distribute even an adjusted version you shouldn't have any problem!? Hmmm?

> Using
> a 3rd party tool, "just because it's there" when we either already
> have it here, or it's blazingly simple to implement on our own, doesn't
> make sense. 

<grin> Thanks that you say the stuff in shtool was "blazingly simple to
implement", but ok, if something doesn't make sense for _you_ then _you_
shouldn't do it, of course. But what I dislike in the whole discussion is that
you always like to speak for the ASF in general, Jim. At least it sounds this
way. OTOH _I_ think it makes sense to use those tools, because...

> In this case, the 2 scripts that Manoj used are standard,
> no-nonsense, loads-of-public-domain-versions-available characters
> and so why not just implement them here. 

...it is not true that shtool just provides two scripts (mkdir and
install). For Apache 2.0 actually from 17 available scripts in shtool,
the following would be reasonable to use: install, mkdir, mkshadow,
fixperm, tarball, guessos, path. That's already 7 out of 17 scripts.
And some others could be useful to use, too. So it's not true that
Apache 2.0 requires only the functionality of two simple and "blazingly
simple to implement" scripts. And you know this, Jim. 

Actually mostly the whole src/helpers/* stuff is still required. And
shtool covers already over 50% of those scripts and not just two trivial
ones. What is instead "blazingly simple to implement" is that you just
can remove over half of src/helpers/* and recreate it with a simple
``shtoolize -o src/helpers/shtool install mkdir mkshadow fixperm tarball
guessos path'' command from time to time and be up to date with all
the script stuff without having to anything. That's what Greg should
actually entitle "lazy"... ;)

> And if they are included
> with Apache-2.0 (and tested with all that) they will immediately
> become a very popular and well-tested suite that the ASF can donate
> to the Open Source community. Everyone wins!!

Hmmmm... IMHO more or less NIH and a reinvention of the wheel, but ok,
feel free to go for it. No more comment on this....

                                       Ralf S. Engelschall
                                       rse@engelschall.com
                                       www.engelschall.com

Mime
View raw message