On 08 Jul 2011, at 6:01 PM, Joe Orton wrote:
I have already done so. If you disagree with the objection, or do
not understand the objection, engage the objection directly so it
can be resolved.
I've done exactly that twice in this thread. I have not seen any
attempt to concisely express a specific technical objection, rather
than
this hand-waving stuff about "inappropriateness", and how the API is
"wrong", how we must necessarily reject code because of the APR vote,
and how it does not solve a problem which you say will be solved
better
by reimplementing the code in APR.
If you don't have specific technical objections (and hence, any reason
for veto) then you should just offer up an alternative solution and we
can have a consensus vote to pick one, and move on.
We have already put the solution to a vote, and this is the outcome:
http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/msg22061.html
I completely do not understand one bit why we are wasting yet more
time voting yet again on a solution. Just pick up a keyboard, a copy
of the draft LDAP RFC, and finish the work we agreed to do.
If you believe someone else should do the work and not you, ask, and
as a courtesy, explain why you believe it shouldn't be you.
If you believe this work should be prioritised for inclusion in httpd
v2.4 and apr-util v1.4, say so.
In the case of MacOSX, it breaks for me as follows:
checking whether to enable mod_authnz_ldap... checking dependencies
checking whether to enable mod_authnz_ldap... configure: error:
mod_authnz_ldap has been requested but can not be built due to
prerequisite failures
Did you build with --with-ldap as well? If so, can you post the
complete config.log?
It builds with --with-ldap, but this should not be necessary - it's
only if your library is in a non standard location that --with-ldap
should be necessary.
Regards,
Graham
--
