On Tue, Nov 12, 2002 at 01:50:51PM +0100, Branko Cibej wrote: > Greg Stein wrote: >... > >*optionally* using iconv should be no problem. It just gets hairy when you > >require the thing. I don't see a reason that patches for optional linkage > >would be rejected... > > Well, I had done exactly that before, and got shot down -- IIRC by wrowe > and rbb -- on the grounds that we shouldn't encourage people to use GPL > stuff, that the ASF had "invested" in apr-iconv and so getting it up to > speed should be a priority... > > I don't see how they can explain the support for the system iconv on > Unix then, but the impression I got was a big "-1" waiting around the > corner.
Hunh. That isn't a technical justification for a veto, so it really ought to be able to go in. Hell, I can technically justify it's addition, so let's hear the opposite :-) I'd say, figure out or resurrect the optional stuff and propose it again. Without it, the stuff is non-functional. If somebody wants to get it working, then more power to 'em, but "avoid a license" shouldn't stop code from simply working. Cheers, -g -- Greg Stein, http://www.lyra.org/
