Suggestion: shtool

["Ralf S. Engelschall" <rs...@engelschall.com>]

Just to drop you a note and to get back a little feedback on a suggestion: 

I've released all the shell scripts I've written and assembled over the last
years into a single and large shtool script which is now released on
http://www.engelschall.com/sw/shtool/ and will be maintained by me in the
future, too. It includes even cleaned up version of the src/helpers/ scripts
I've used for APACI one year ago. And because even GuessOS is included it
would be possible to completely replace all src/helpers/* scripts with a
single(!) src/helpers/shtool script. 

I'm not really keen on doing this, because of side-effects or whatever else.
But it at least sounds reasonable.  Because a lot of bugfixes were already
done for shtool which aren't present in the src/helpers/* stuff and I cannot
maintain two things in parallel, of course. OTOH shtool includes things we
still don't need in Apache. 

So my suggestion is this: People like Jim and other shell-gurus should take a
look at shtool and decide on their own whether it's reasonable to incorporate
this work or whether it's reasonable to keep the current state and maintain it
seperately just for Apache. As I said, I've no strong opinions and just think
it would be reasonable to use shtool. 

For a real-life usage of shtool inside a source tree look at the MM library
source tree (see http://www.engelschall.com/sw/mm/). There lshtool is a little
older variant of shtool and there you can see how it seamlessly integrates
with Makefiles, libtool, etc.

At least for Apache 1.4/2.0 it sounds reasonable to use shtool, of course :)

                                       Ralf S. Engelschall
                                       rse@engelschall.com
                                       www.engelschall.com

Re: Suggestion: shtool

[Marc Slemko <ma...@znep.com>]

On Fri, 23 Apr 1999, Ben Laurie wrote:

> I completely fail to see why a single script is thought to be an
> advantage.

I guess it can be an advantage where it is being used in a more generic
way and not tightly integrated with a package.  Then all you need on a
system is one script that can be used by whatever packages.

I'm not sure it makes much sense at this stage of the 1.3 game.

> 
> Hey! I've combined all the sources for Apache into a single file,
> apache.c. Its a really cool idea, coz you can build Apache like this:
> 
> cc -o apache apache.c
> 
> Ow! Stop it with those stones! :-)

You know what the biggest objection to such a proposal would be?

Hey!  We can't do that!  If you do:

	cc -o httpd httpd.c

that is fine, but you can't rename the binary to apache!

<g>

Re: Suggestion: shtool

[Ben Laurie <be...@algroup.co.uk>]

Ralf S. Engelschall wrote:
> 
> Just to drop you a note and to get back a little feedback on a suggestion:
> 
> I've released all the shell scripts I've written and assembled over the last
> years into a single and large shtool script which is now released on
> http://www.engelschall.com/sw/shtool/ and will be maintained by me in the
> future, too. It includes even cleaned up version of the src/helpers/ scripts
> I've used for APACI one year ago. And because even GuessOS is included it
> would be possible to completely replace all src/helpers/* scripts with a
> single(!) src/helpers/shtool script.

I completely fail to see why a single script is thought to be an
advantage.

Hey! I've combined all the sources for Apache into a single file,
apache.c. Its a really cool idea, coz you can build Apache like this:

cc -o apache apache.c

Ow! Stop it with those stones! :-)

Cheers,

Ben.

--
http://www.apache-ssl.org/ben.html

"My grandfather once told me that there are two kinds of people: those
who work and those who take the credit. He told me to try to be in the
first group; there was less competition there."
     - Indira Gandhi