httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Steinar H. Gunderson" <>
Subject Re: mpm-itk and upstream Apache, once again
Date Fri, 20 Jul 2012 17:56:42 GMT
On Fri, Jul 20, 2012 at 01:48:33PM -0400, Jeff Trawick wrote:
>> Why would you keep mpm-itk separate but mod_privileges not?
> IMO it is not a very relevant question given the big picture:
> * Most modules written for httpd are not bundled with the server or
> otherwise hosted/developed at the ASF.
> * mod_privileges is for a minority server operating system and is not
> used extensively even there.
> * You won't find much rhyme or reason to why some modules are bundled
> and some are not other than whether or the author has commit access,
> and even then there isn't much consistency.

I'm not sure if I understand this. Should not “the module is considered
useful” be a better criteria than “the module is written by someone with
commit access”? And how can “the module has a very small user base” be an
argument _for_ keeping it in trunk, and the more popular one out?

If nothing else, should not a module that's patched in by a significant
fraction be pulled into the main tree, to lighten the burden on distributors?

> As far as mpm-itk:  A few hooks can be added to httpd core so that it
> can be enabled just like other modules*, whether or not anyone here
> cares about the implementation details.
> *Of course that isn't really true of the popular 2.2.x branch, but I
> don't think it is realistic to hope that mpm-itk would ever make it to
> 2.2.x anyway.

If we can really get mpm-itk compilable out-of-tree without Apache patches,
that would certainly be a better situation than what we have today.
(The situation with 2.2.x will work itself out in time, of course,
as distributions and users slowly migrate to 2.4.x.)

> By the way, did any other httpd-ers have a look at those patches and
> have suggestions for what hooks could be added?

I don't know how many have actually looked at the code in detail; there was
some light review around the time of the initial 2.4.x port, but I generally
do not receive a lot of feedback on the httpd integration itself. I guess
it's not a part that make a lot of people excited.

/* Steinar */

View raw message