On 2/19/2012 9:56 PM, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote: > From this link; http://httpd.apache.org/docs/2.4/ you will observe > that the lower half of the right column is the 'official' place for > platform/architecture docs. Outright bugs should be corrected by > offering a patch.
So far this documentation doesn't seem to deal with build activities which is where the conversation has grown... I'm not sure it should. > Sometimes we are creating new text, this could even include you, and > it's a bit to dynamic for the main docs tree yet. There are several > groups of architecture-related docs at http://wiki.apache.org/httpd/ > which are still being improved. Making contributions to this wiki > and then bringing them up for discussion at d...@httpd.apache.org > is the surest way to help them find review and inclusion in the main > httpd docs. Agreed - the wiki is the place to create these types of docs and let packagers and maintainers tweak/enhance them until maturity. I've been building on AIX for years and was pleased to learn something new from Eric's article you mentioned. Also, I think the wiki is the place to use since there are many ways to skin a cat (produce a build, in this case) with some ways working/fitting your environment better than others. This could lead to a lot of suggestions or documentation that might not fit in the `official' docs. Do we want to come up with a wishlist to frame a skeleton for build documentation? I would expect a generic area of documentation for stuff like "how to compile with ldaps support" versus "how to get the configure script on AIX to ultimately link libldap properly". Suffice to say I learned a lot of stuff through trial and error while packaging over the years - it wouldn't take much arm twisting for me to spread that knowledge. My question is whether or not there is an audience to make the effort worthwhile. -- Daniel Ruggeri
