httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "William A. Rowe Jr." <>
Subject Re: svn commit: r885606 - /httpd/httpd/trunk/build/rpm/httpd.init
Date Thu, 03 Dec 2009 20:15:07 GMT
Gregg L. Smith wrote:
> Original Message -----------------------
>> Finally, I have yet to see any feedback on the pcre mandatory 
>> dependency issue.  Comments?
> Personally, I thought your Monopoly metaphor was quite on target.
> libz, openssl, lua = batteries not included
> apr, apu, pcre = drive train not included.
>> And what is passing for an excuse for a local PCRE install 
>> these days probably doesn't look like 7.8 or later, with 
>> various fixes we are vulnerable to.
> This does not leave me with a warm and fuzzy feeling. As a user, is the pcre 8.0 I've
built going to expose me to risks that your maintained 7.8 does not? If yes, then I'd prefer
your maintained one. After all, who knows better than you what will interact with your code
to produce problems. Regardless of merit, who will ultimately get blamed in the end? Could
your reputation be tarnished? Can you completely divorce yourself from something your software
requires to run?

I'm referring to pre v7 chaos.  And mostly not referring to modern
linux distros.

> The 'Jump Ship' factor;
> To me, and I'm probably wrong, it sounds like Mr. Felt's comment was an ultimatum of
sorts as 'indefinitely' is a pretty strong word. With this issue you have created a deal with
it or jump ship ultimatum which could very well leave some people scrambling to get off. Each
person is going to inevitably weigh the pain factor, the pain of dealing with it over the
pain of jumping ship. I consider myself lucky that my second attempt to deal with it was successful,
or so it seems so far anyway, but I never know from day to day.

Agreed that ease-of-adoption is going to be the usual, first barrier to
anyone jumping aboard 2.4 from 2.2, 2.0, or even still from 1.3.

> I may be wrong but as an outsider looking in, I see you wanting to stop maintaining/including
the gear box and are instead spending the time on adding more optional gadgets to choose from
(some of the third party modules you've taken over). In the end, I'd prefer having a reverse
gear over the rear window defogger. You are also loosing all control of a required piece of
equipment, this has got to make some of you at least cringe a little.

I'm not 100% sure I understand what you are saying here.  Drop the
gearbox and let them assemble their own transmission?  Or distribute
a most modern transmission that the user can ignore or swap out if they
want to install their own?

> Sorry for the outburst, but you opened the door for, and I've said what I've wanted to
for some time now, thanks for listening. Corrections and daggers welcomed.

No problems, thanks for chiming in.

View raw message