httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From TOKI...@aol.com
Subject Re: [Fwd: png icons for apache]
Date Mon, 18 Sep 2000 18:38:31 GMT

In a message dated 00-09-18 18:05:16 EDT, James wrote...

>  > Go for it. I think you are talking to the wrong person, however.
>  > It doesn't matter what I think. You need to talk to someone who
>  > rolls the Apache tarballs.
>  
>  I know - it's just you were the one objecting :-)

Not really objecting...
Just wondering who perceives this to be a problem that needs solving.
That person would not be me.

>  Yup. One thing we should work on is making Apache work "out of the box":
>  make the defaults as sensible as possible, clearly document the config
>  files, etc.

You mean... kinda like what a coupla guys in North Carolina finally
did for Linux and called the extra effort Purple Hat or something
like that? I think they both own their own islands now.

Forgive me but I think by now the odds that this will ever happen
for Apache are about as good as the Heaven's Gate folks coming 
back from the other side of the comet to tell us there wasn't anything 
there.

People have talked about documenting Apache correctly for years
but it just hasn't happened... and who can blame them. The code
just won't stand still long enough for the effort to be worth it.

>  > >  ...why shouldn't we offer PNGs??
>  > 
>  > No reason other than the same reason people don't offer
>  > compressed versions of their Web sites, which would REALLY
>  > help the whole bandwidth situation. It's a bother and most 
>  > people just don't want to bother generating ( or maintaining )
>  > 2 sets of anything.
>  
>  True; since this can be automated, though, we can just add this to the
>  tarball rolling instructions? Maintain one set (preferably PNG, I think?)
>  as authoritative, then autogenerate the GIF version from that in each
>  tarball.

autogenerate with what? 

See what I mean. You are now talking 'autogenerate' and 'maintain'
and 'two sets' and 'in each tarball' which all amounts to one thing...
more file maintenance ( with barely perceptible reasons for doing so ).

>  > If you really see this as a problem... do what the process
>  > allows... submit a patch with new insertions for the tarball
>  > and run it up the flagpole and see if it flys.
>  
>  I think someone's already done this; they certainly quoted the file size
>  changes, and there wasn't much in it.

I still think it's a solution in search of a problem.
Just my opinion.

Yours
Kevin Kiley
http://www.RemoteCommunications.com
http://www.RemoteCommunications.com/rctpd/ - Free IETF encoding Server


Mime
View raw message