httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Graham Leggett <>
Subject Re: svn commit: r1294380 - in /httpd/httpd/branches/2.2.x: build/aix/ build/aix/README build/aix/aixinfo build/aix/buildaix.ksh build/aix/mkinstallp.ksh config.layout
Date Tue, 28 Feb 2012 22:04:20 GMT
On 28 Feb 2012, at 11:26 PM, Jeff Trawick wrote:

>> I don't have access to an AIX machine, so can only rely on Michael's judgement for
this. Given that we aren't awash with AIX expertise, we need to put some trust in the person
doing the packaging, the same as we do for Netware and other similar platforms.
> FWLIW, others on the list have access.

Noone has yet stepped forward if they have, it would be good to get more experienced eyes
on this.

>> I don't see why labeling it "ASF" is a problem. Anyone building the package would
be doing so by following a formal procedure codified in the build script, which is in turn
published by the ASF, as opposed some vendor's build script.

> Maybe this info would help...  I dunno.  This really is project-only
> scope we're managing, not ASF-wide scope.  Either there is
> coordination among different projects, or it shouldn't look like there
> is.

Of course there is coordination among projects - Michael has packaged (or at least I understand
he has, still waiting to be sent the scripts) the ASF versions of APR, and the ASF versions
of APR-util, which are the logical dependencies of the ASF version of httpd.

We have been using this naming convention in the Solaris build scripts for many many years,
and I don't see why suddenly this should be a problem, or why we need to subvert that convention
all of a sudden.

>>> What about the todos regarding copyrights and licenses?
>> What specifically about them?
> The todo file you committed says that verbatim ;)  What are they, and
> why can't they be resolved before committing?
>> From what I can see, AIX packages offer the option to force the end user to accept
a license before installing a package, and there is an open question as to whether we do this
or not. We don't do it for RPM (nor does RPM let you do this), I see no reason to mandate
doing it here.
> License acceptance is one thing.  I dunno what the copyright issue is.

Michael, would it be possible to clarify? There is nothing in the license for httpd that obligates
an end user to accept a license before installing, so if they don't need to now, there is
no need to change that.


View raw message