On Tue, 28 Nov 2000, you wrote: > James A Sutherland wrote: > > > > If this is a requirement, taking a "snapshot" of the pages would do, > > then include the source in a tarball. Perhaps better to include a > > link to a proper installation of the docs, though. > > Putting a burden on the process of packaging the software for > distribution, solely so some files can be renamed. For this > reason and the effect on the repository, -1.
I never suggested a vote on the issue; you actually said that this is already done: "the documentation is packaged as part of the Apache distribution, with the SSIs statically 'compiled'". You've also missed the point completely - "solely so some files can be renamed"?! Renaming some of the files was part of the proposed method, not one of the aims. I don't see what you mean about "the effect on the repository", either: it's a simple change to the HTML files in it. I accept it involves some extra work in packaging; if the CVS tree were made available, periodically updated, it would be a simple "wget" command to "freeze" the documentation for a release. > > > No. Lots of people DO NOT want SSIs enabled, and certainly not > > > by default. > > > > Hrm... Personally, I'd provide a link to thttpd for people wanting > > a minimal cutdown server which does nothing other than serving > > files :-) > > Who said anything about a minimal server? Some people just don't > want to enable SSIs. The documentation must be readable by the > server with which it ships, in its barest form. So put a link to a complete server with the docs on. Or "freeze" the docs from a server with SSI enabled. James.
