[EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> They're dirty unix hacks, that's why! :)
>
> I don't think they are hacks, but I will agree they are somewhat hard to
> use.
>
> However, I did manage to learn enough to get JServ building just fine and
> there is a huge collection of useful code in JServ that could easily be
> migrated over to Tomcat if someone wants to take the time to do it.
Ok... So that's a personal preference, let's say... I don't like 'em because
the look as hacks to me :) :) :)
>> And because if you use
>> autoconf/automake under unix, you will loose the ability to have
>> parallel builds on another operating system wich doesn't support those
>> (ala Windows or MacOS/X)...
>
> Uh Pier, this isn't true at all.
>
> auto* works just fine on MacOSX.
Are those two on the CDs that Fred gave us? Because if not I'm clueless :)
> As for Windows, ppl can install cygwin and autoconf/automake work just
> fine there as well. I even compiled and installed wget on my Win98 box
> under cygwin with gcc/autoconf/automake/etc without any problems.
Ok, but I don't want ppl to download cygwin just to compile the module, when
MSVC and NMAKE work just fine... But anyway since for Windows all we want to
do is building binaries and redistributing DLLs (never heard of anyone
trying to compile under Win but me!), I'll look what can be possibly done
after Milestone 5...
>> And also there's a slight problem with licensing... AutoConf and
>> AutoMake are GPL... I am not 100% convinced that we can include them as
>> a part of our distribution...
>
> Another thing that isn't true. There is absolutely no issue with
> licensing. In fact, Apache 2.0 is built using autoconf.
Oh... But shouldn't you redistribute some files that come with the Auto*
tools? Not the templates nor the ./configure, but all the other files (like
config.guess and such!)... I still keep my reasonable doubt until I won't
see that none of the files checked into CVS is equal to any file in the
Auto* tools :) will check after M5 is released :)
> I think that people who compile things in C are used to using configure
> and I think that we should support it. But, I'm not willing to do the work
> so I guess whatever everyone else wants to do is fine with me.
The thing I hate about Auto* is that they somehow impose a check on a HUGE
number of things that we'll never use... And they're hard as hell to
maintain (once you've done an autoconf/automake you don't want to do it
twice!)
> I will say though that I don't approve of giving people bogus reasons for
> the reason that we are not currently using it. I think the end reason is
> that if someone wants to see it used badly enough, then they should take
> the time to contribute the code to use it.
The first reason was "I don't like them because they're hacks", and the
others were pretty good :) I mean, don't ask me to download CygWin to build
under windows (and I would _love_ to have a parallel build on the two
platforms) since Apache 1.3 doesn't need it (and I believe nobody ever
ported it down there!), and the license, well, I want to check about what
files we need to redistribute and what their license says exactly...
Also, I don't want to do it :)
> Sorry to disagree with you Pier. :-)
No problems... I'll just dig in more; those were my assumptions and that's
why I asked Matthew to post it to the list... I wanted to get feedback!
All I say is ALWAYS IMVHO :) :) :)
Pier
--
Pier P. Fumagalli Apache Software Foundation <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Neque porro quisquam est qui dolorem ipsum quia dolor sit amet, consectetur,
adipisci velit... (Cicero: "De Finibus" 1.10.32)
