Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-new-httpd-archive@apache.org Received: (qmail 92558 invoked by uid 500); 30 Jul 2000 07:57:41 -0000 Mailing-List: contact new-httpd-help@apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk X-No-Archive: yes Reply-To: new-httpd@apache.org list-help: list-unsubscribe: list-post: Delivered-To: mailing list new-httpd@apache.org Received: (qmail 92547 invoked from network); 30 Jul 2000 07:57:41 -0000 Date: Sun, 30 Jul 2000 00:57:23 -0700 From: Manoj Kasichainula To: new-httpd@apache.org Subject: Re: Configure for 2.0 ? Message-ID: <20000730005723.A5829@manojk.users.mindspring.com> Mail-Followup-To: new-httpd@apache.org References: <200007291455.KAA19594@devsys.jaguNET.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.6i In-Reply-To: <200007291455.KAA19594@devsys.jaguNET.com>; from jim@jaguNET.com on Sat, Jul 29, 2000 at 10:55:32AM -0400 X-Spam-Rating: locus.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N On Sat, Jul 29, 2000 at 10:55:32AM -0400, Jim Jagielski wrote: > Anyone have any opinions on us having a Configure interface for 2.0 ? > I'm sure there are those who still prefer non-command-line interfaces :) I'd have no objection except that it really shouldn't be caled Configure. In 1.3, it just got too confusing referring to capital-C-configure vs. little-c-configure all the time. A shell script containing your favorite configuration options (like config.nice but something you write yourself) would do the job, but dealing with the necessary backslashing and ugly "--"'s everywhere might be reason enough