From: Jim Jagielski <jim@jaguNET.com>
Message-Id: <200001211552.KAA21254@devsys.jaguNET.com>
Subject: Re: Building Apache 2.0
To: new-httpd@apache.org
Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2000 10:52:58 -0500 (EST)
In-Reply-To: <20000121160056.A52564@engelschall.com> from "Ralf S.
 Engelschall" at Jan 21, 2000 04:00:56 PM
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: new-httpd-owner@apache.org
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: new-httpd@apache.org

I agree... the whole idea behind APACI was to provide an interface
to people that resembled GNU's configure scripts and didn't
like nasty things like "editing files" (ie. Configuration).
With autoconf, we _have_ GNU configure and some configure interface
that then calls configure would be just way too stupid to even
consider.

To be honest, what I plan on doing for 2.0 is providing a Configure
interface which takes a Configuration type file and generates
the required command-line args to configure. :)

Ralf S. Engelschall wrote:
> 
> 
> In article <20000120130153.C5074@io.com> you wrote:
> > On Thu, Jan 20, 2000 at 12:54:17PM -0500, Ryan Bloom wrote:
> >> 
> >> Some of the most recent changes to the build method for Apache 2.0 have
> >> broken the APACI configuration.  This means that you must use the new
> >> autoconf build method.
> > 
> > If we're not planning to fix the APACI configuration, then we should
> > go ahead and eliminate it.
> 
> Exactly. Either kick it out at all together with src/Configure or fix
> it, please. Anything else is too much confusion...
> 
>                                        Ralf S. Engelschall
>                                        rse@engelschall.com
>                                        www.engelschall.com
> 


-- 
===========================================================================
   Jim Jagielski   [|]   jim@jaguNET.com   [|]   http://www.jaguNET.com/
                "Are you suggesting coconuts migrate??"