on 11/28/2000 5:28 PM, "Pier P. Fumagalli" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Are those two on the CDs that Fred gave us? Because if not I'm clueless :)
They are on the MacOSX developer CD...and I can't believe I'm saying this to
you, mr. bandwidth, but you *could* just download and install them from
ftp.gnu.org. :-) I did it myself and it worked just fine.
> Ok, but I don't want ppl to download cygwin just to compile the module, when
> MSVC and NMAKE work just fine...
As with JServ, those are acceptable alternatives as well. I only suggested
cygwin because you said you wanted window support. :-)
I also don't believe that requiring developers to download cygwin is such as
bad thing. It is SOOOO easy to install and even update cygwin these days it
is silly. The people who have worked on that project have done an EXCELLENT
job.
> Oh... But shouldn't you redistribute some files that come with the Auto*
> tools? Not the templates nor the ./configure, but all the other files (like
> config.guess and such!)... I still keep my reasonable doubt until I won't
> see that none of the files checked into CVS is equal to any file in the
> Auto* tools :) will check after M5 is released :)
There are no issues with the license.
> The thing I hate about Auto* is that they somehow impose a check on a HUGE
> number of things that we'll never use... And they're hard as hell to
> maintain (once you've done an autoconf/automake you don't want to do it
> twice!)
Again, not true at all. When you create the configure.in script, you can
specify what is checked.
> The first reason was "I don't like them because they're hacks",
That is fine.
> and the others were pretty good :)
No, I'm sorry, but the others were untrue statements.
> I mean, don't ask me to download CygWin to build
> under windows (and I would _love_ to have a parallel build on the two
> platforms) since Apache 1.3 doesn't need it (and I believe nobody ever
> ported it down there!),
Again, you were the one who suggested Windows. I was simply providing some
truth to your statements. :-)
> and the license, well, I want to check about what
> files we need to redistribute and what their license says exactly...
Like I said, it isn't an issue. autoconf/automake have special licenses that
prevent the GPL from being viral on the code that they generate or depend
on. Just like gcc has.
> Also, I don't want to do it :)
That is fine, just don't give untrue answers because you don't want to do
it. :-)
> No problems... I'll just dig in more; those were my assumptions and that's
> why I asked Matthew to post it to the list... I wanted to get feedback!
> All I say is ALWAYS IMVHO :) :) :)
There, I have given you feedback. :-)
-jon
--
twice of not very much is still a lot more than not very much
