On Tue, Jan 10, 2006 at 05:56:38PM +0100, Maxime Petazzoni wrote: > I understand why these scripts are important in order to maintain the > ASF mail archives website. These scripts call some helper programs > (actually contained in the trunk/module-2.0/ directory) to process the > mailbox files.
No, they don't. They can call either mod-mbox-util or the helper apps. (I really don't like mod-mbox-util - busybox still apps are awful and are confusing to understand; but I obviously lost that battle.) I think without these scripts mod_mbox is largely useless. You need some scripts to help generate the archives. So, even though they are customized for our setup, they are a help (in the category of 'better than nothing') to users who would download mod_mbox to help understand how it all works together to create a real archive site on the backend. > I guess you've been using binaries compiled long ago, before the API > breakage, but since a lot of improvments and changes in the APR during > this period of time, I just wonder how the whole thing can > work. No. The scripts use mod-mbox-util. > Next, I would like to make you notice that these scripts do not belong > the the module's source code because they are not useful and made for > the mod_mbox user (as an admin) but only for an internal purpose. Thus > I propose that we move the scripts directory one level up : I think they do belong and should be included in a release. Namely, I don't buy Roy's arguments against including them. The potential benefit to understanding how mod_mbox works outweighs the slight cost of including some small scripts. If anyone ever bothers to rewrite them, more power to them. However, not including *any* documentation or examples in the tarball seems much worse than excluding these scripts. If we had a full on manual that explains how someone would set up a real archive site with mod_mbox, and a useful README file, maybe I would think differently - but we don't. -- justin
