httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Justin Erenkrantz <jerenkra...@ebuilt.com>
Subject Re: Apache 2.0.27 and 2.0.28 RPM available
Date Sat, 24 Nov 2001 05:39:47 GMT
On Thu, Nov 22, 2001 at 01:38:30PM +1100, Daniel Stone wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 20, 2001 at 12:32:07PM -0800, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
> > [ Please inline your patches rather than attaching them unless
> >   you are using LookOut!  It makes it awfully hard to review.  ]
> 
> What's LookOut! ? BTW, inlining is sorta tricky to do with mutt, and I
> haven't yet mastered vim - it was easy with nmh, tho. :)

Outlook.  (You have to LookOut! for Outlook as it isn't compliant
with didly squat.)  I just insert the files into vi with :r.  

> apache used to have a program called "ubersed", but we don't use that
> any more as I think it's a crude hack - patches work just as well.

Eh, what's that?

> > No.  We want to be picky with our libtool version - the version we 
> > built with (i.e. in build/) is the one want to use with 
> > apxs-enabled builds.
> 
> Why's this?

Libtool is a very tricky beast.  Oftentimes, we want a *very* specific 
version on a system (the libtool in my path isn't necessarily the same
one that I build with - this may cause trouble when building with apxs).  
Also, consider OS/X.  You can't use the libtool in the PATH because it 
isn't GNU libtool.  The only libtool we can rely on is the one in 
build/libtool that we built in the build.  You guys are free to add
this to your package, but I won't commit this back to the tree as it
would break other platforms.

> > > >>      - add a --with-ssl-port as we have --with-port
<snip, snip>
> > Commented on this yesterday.  I don't like this.
> 
> I didn't catch that one.

The prevailing belief of the developers is that mod_ssl is too
hard to automatically configure (I don't necessarily hold this
position, mind you).  Therefore, we want the user to manually 
configure it themselves.

> A .spec file is what is used to build an RPM. Its format is fairly
> self-explanatory, if (IMHO) on some very, very potent crack.

I was asking about FHS.  I'm not sure how that has anything to do
with changing stuff - why can't that just be a layout?

> > > I've got some questions for Apache2 developpers :
> > > 
> > > What prefix represent, a basedir for conf, or binary,
> > > or data ?
> > 
> > I would say binary, but it is all relative to the layout.
> 
> My ServerRoot is /etc/apache2, but almost nothing uses that.
>
> sysconfdir is not respected, as the conf file is defined in configure.in
> to be conf/$progname.conf.

IMHO, --prefix is generally implied as the default binary path.
--sysconfdir is where we should place config files.  But, I
know we aren't handling that correctly.  But, our config
layout has always been a bit messy.

It may be worthwhile to step back and determine what the
optimal layout is for each of you and see if we can support
that out-of-the-box via config.layout.  -- justin


Mime
View raw message