On Tue, Apr 11, 2017 at 8:18 AM, Stefan Eissing
<stefan.eiss...@greenbytes.de> wrote:
> I do not understand why we are discussing brotli build issues here. We do not 
> plan to ship it, only to link against their now supposedly stable API if we 
> find it. If Linux distros are willing to build and package it and solve any 
> conflicts they might have in naming bins, I am totally fine with that.

Nope, that would totally keep my veto in place. We don't ship source
code for the Linux distros good at no charge. We ship source code
for the public good at no charge. Part of that is that anyone with some
technical savvy can build and use our code, not the limited few who
can divine what our source code does with no docs, no references.

> mod_brotli, I just built and tested in my environment. It works nicely, 
> people want it, I voted for it.

That's why my veto was just withdrawn, the sources *do* build, from
the git tag. What I believed was a regression of the source distribution
(back to the state of 0.5.2) was actually mispackaging or mislabeling
that is being remedied.

Code that can't be built does not need to be supported here. There
are plenty of third party modules that work nicely and which people
want, that are not a fit here for one reason or another. Not buildable
by our users would rank high on that list.

Reply via email to