httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Justin Erenkrantz <jerenkra...@ebuilt.com>
Subject Re: mod_proxy in HTTPd
Date Thu, 19 Apr 2001 22:59:06 GMT
On Thu, Apr 19, 2001 at 05:08:26PM -0500, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
> That is what...
> 
> /dist/proxy/
> /dist/rewrite/
> 
> etc can do for us.  After-the-fact releases of these modules can go there.
> 
> The full apache will always be in
> 
> /dist/httpd/
> 
> and that should solve that.  It may not be as 'fresh' as the individual
> sub-projects, but the webmaster can be assured it works.

Now, you've lost me.  Isn't the goal to have the stable versions of the
modules included in /dist/httpd/ as part of the standard Apache tarball?
The user shouldn't have to go to /dist/proxy to get mod_proxy unless they
want a "development version" not included as part of the standard Apache
tarball.

I agree with the sentiment that if a module is not included with the
"official" tarball, it may not be accepted.  I know of some friends who
tried to install mod_perl with apache-1.3.x and gave up because it was
too complicated (they aren't experts at compiling, but rather experts
at other things).  I think that the people on this list don't see the
problem compiling in external modules, but I know of a lot of people not
on this list who are constantly frustrated by compiling external modules.
It should be brain-numbingly simple to add in modules and the most
common ones developed by ASF should be at least included in the tarball
(not enabled by default, of course).

The fact that Apache-2.x's build system doesn't support the extra feature
from 1.3's scares me a bit.  I don't think external modules can be added 
without a lot of hassle in the current build system.  That worries me.  

We'd have to generate the config.m4 file on the fly.  Hmm...  -- justin


Mime
View raw message