[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, Sep 03, 2002 at 09:51:20AM -0500, Jess M. Holle wrote:
It would be nicest of all to have builds of each version of the core for
each platform -- and pluggable binaries of all the extra modules for
each version/platform as well.
Eergh.. this
On Tue, Sep 03, 2002 at 09:51:20AM -0500, Jess M. Holle wrote:
It would be nicest of all to have builds of each version of the core for
each platform -- and pluggable binaries of all the extra modules for
each version/platform as well.
Eergh.. this sounds like a maintenance nightmare.
PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Vote: mod_jk connector in /experimental
Point taken. I didn't think about that. The problem is that it is not at
all clear what should get in. Indeed, a repository would be a better
idea, with an apache distribution with no modules ( or only the core
On Wed, 4 Sep 2002, Peter Van Biesen wrote:
how do you see this ? A core server with a bunch of .so's or hooks in
the build process to statically link optional modules ?
Check out FreeBSD ports; basically a set of simple make files like:
ls /usr/ports//mod_*
mod_access_identd
On Tue, Sep 03, 2002 at 01:15:43PM +0200, Peter Van Biesen wrote:
servlets, most apaches will use mod_jk anyway.
I beg to differ.
I'd like to start a vote to get mod_jk in the apache core
distribution.
The jk is not in the TC distribution, but rather in the
jakarta-tomcat-connectors.
It seems silly to me to leave it in the tomcat distribution,
That's your opinion, and you should first ask the question to the right
Mladen Turk wrote:
I'd like to start a vote to get mod_jk in the apache core
distribution.
The jk is not in the TC distribution, but rather in the
jakarta-tomcat-connectors.
My mistake.
It seems silly to me to leave it in the tomcat distribution,
That's your opinion, and you
From Peter Van Biesen
Anyway, I gathered that apache was a organization that
promoted public initiative. Apparently, it is not
appreciated. I hope your attitude will get you far in your
carreer ( probably a management position, I'm sure ... ).
There is no need to take that personal.
Mladen Turk wrote:
There is no need to take that personal. You should post that question to
the [EMAIL PROTECTED] first. No one is pushing you out, and
all your ideas and thoughts will be highly appreciated.
OK
Second, if you are asking for a vote then IMO there should be some sort
of
Here we go.
kitchen sink come on - we let a module into experimental (auth_ldap) and
suddenly experimental will become the CPAN of apache.
I think this is a silly idea personally. More cruft to maintain and to
hold back releases, etc. etc. etc. Until Aaron's (et. al) idea of a module
Point taken. I didn't think about that. The problem is that it is not at
all clear what should get in. Indeed, a repository would be a better
idea, with an apache distribution with no modules ( or only the core
ones ).
Peter.
Dirk-Willem van Gulik wrote:
Aye ! Well said.
Dw.
On Tue, 3
-- Original Message --
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 03 Sep 2002 16:24:01 +0200
From: Peter Van Biesen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Vote: mod_jk connector in /experimental
Point taken. I didn't think about that. The problem is that it is not at
all clear what
It would be nicest of all to have builds of each version of the core for
each platform -- and pluggable binaries of all the extra modules for each
version/platform as well. This could be cranked out by automated scripts
as a release criteria/requirement, i.e. it's not a release until
13 matches
Mail list logo
