mod_cern_meta, mod_imagemap

["William A. Rowe, Jr." <wr...@rowe-clan.net>]

Any suggestions of how we can set up an 'extra' modules area for
very simple modules such as cern_meta and imagemap which are so
old and crusty, it isn't sensible to ever ship them in 2.4 or 3.0
flavors of httpd?

Started to think about this, and realized that mod_ftp and similar
elements of the httpd project are too "heavy" and approach for
single source files with single doc pages.

Yes; believe it or not (due to the mod_i[mage]map vulnerability)
I had uncloaked at least two customers still using this module,
so people still want it.  That doesn't mean these should remain
in the collection of recommended modules that come in the httpd
tarball, however :)

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: docs-unsubscribe@httpd.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: docs-help@httpd.apache.org

Re: mod_cern_meta, mod_imagemap

[Graham Leggett <mi...@sharp.fm>]

Paul Querna wrote:

> delete them.
> 
> if they need them, they can go find them in old svn branches and use apxs.
> 
> it should be HARD to use server side image maps now days.
> 
> you could say, let it die.
> 
> but i prefer, help it die.

+1.

Regards,
Graham
--

Re: mod_cern_meta, mod_imagemap

[Graham Leggett <mi...@sharp.fm>]

Paul Querna wrote:

> delete them.
> 
> if they need them, they can go find them in old svn branches and use apxs.
> 
> it should be HARD to use server side image maps now days.
> 
> you could say, let it die.
> 
> but i prefer, help it die.

+1.

Regards,
Graham
--

Re: mod_cern_meta, mod_imagemap

[Lars Eilebrecht <la...@eilebrecht.net>]

Paul Querna wrote:

> delete them.

+1

> you could say, let it die.
> 
> but i prefer, help it die.

I'm really happy to help in this case. :)

ciao...
-- 
Lars Eilebrecht
lars@eilebrecht.net

Re: mod_cern_meta, mod_imagemap

[Jorge Schrauwen <jo...@gmail.com>]

I know there is a way to drop in modules in the httpd source tree before
compiling.
I've always found this complicated and compile module out of the tree.

Maybe a better way to drop modules into the tree could be created?
Then extra modules could be downloaded and dropped in.

Maybe a page on httpd.a.o where you can download the tar's to drop in?

Just thing out loud here.

/me leaves his 2 cents on the table

~Jorge


On Wed, Nov 5, 2008 at 9:29 PM, Ruediger Pluem <rp...@apache.org> wrote:

>
>
> On 11/05/2008 09:24 PM, Nick Kew wrote:
> > On Wed, 05 Nov 2008 14:02:55 -0600
> > Paul Querna <ch...@force-elite.com> wrote:
> >
> >> William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
> >>> Any suggestions of how we can set up an 'extra' modules area for
> >>> very simple modules such as cern_meta and imagemap which are so
> >>> old and crusty, it isn't sensible to ever ship them in 2.4 or 3.0
> >>> flavors of httpd?
> >
> > Indeed.  But supporting them at the level of "still works" should
> > be trivial.
> >
> >> delete them.
> >
> > -1.  Stop packaging them, but keep them in an attic for anyone
> > who still wants them.
>
> I agree. What is the real burden of keeping them around and remove
> them from building by default?
> They don't seem to require much maintenance and they don't eat significant
> space in the distribution.
>
> Regards
>
> Rüdiger
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: docs-unsubscribe@httpd.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: docs-help@httpd.apache.org
>
>

Re: mod_cern_meta, mod_imagemap

[Ruediger Pluem <rp...@apache.org>]

On 11/05/2008 09:24 PM, Nick Kew wrote:
> On Wed, 05 Nov 2008 14:02:55 -0600
> Paul Querna <ch...@force-elite.com> wrote:
> 
>> William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
>>> Any suggestions of how we can set up an 'extra' modules area for
>>> very simple modules such as cern_meta and imagemap which are so
>>> old and crusty, it isn't sensible to ever ship them in 2.4 or 3.0
>>> flavors of httpd?
> 
> Indeed.  But supporting them at the level of "still works" should
> be trivial.
> 
>> delete them.
> 
> -1.  Stop packaging them, but keep them in an attic for anyone
> who still wants them.

I agree. What is the real burden of keeping them around and remove
them from building by default?
They don't seem to require much maintenance and they don't eat significant
space in the distribution.

Regards

Rüdiger


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: docs-unsubscribe@httpd.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: docs-help@httpd.apache.org

Re: mod_cern_meta, mod_imagemap

[Nick Kew <ni...@webthing.com>]

On Wed, 05 Nov 2008 14:02:55 -0600
Paul Querna <ch...@force-elite.com> wrote:

> William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
> > Any suggestions of how we can set up an 'extra' modules area for
> > very simple modules such as cern_meta and imagemap which are so
> > old and crusty, it isn't sensible to ever ship them in 2.4 or 3.0
> > flavors of httpd?

Indeed.  But supporting them at the level of "still works" should
be trivial.

> delete them.

-1.  Stop packaging them, but keep them in an attic for anyone
who still wants them.

> if they need them, they can go find them in old svn branches and use
> apxs.
> 
> it should be HARD to use server side image maps now days.

Why?

It's a perfectly valid construct.

-- 
Nick Kew

Application Development with Apache - the Apache Modules Book
http://www.apachetutor.org/

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: docs-unsubscribe@httpd.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: docs-help@httpd.apache.org

Re: mod_cern_meta, mod_imagemap

[Paul Querna <ch...@force-elite.com>]

William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
> Any suggestions of how we can set up an 'extra' modules area for
> very simple modules such as cern_meta and imagemap which are so
> old and crusty, it isn't sensible to ever ship them in 2.4 or 3.0
> flavors of httpd?
> 
> Started to think about this, and realized that mod_ftp and similar
> elements of the httpd project are too "heavy" and approach for
> single source files with single doc pages.
> 
> Yes; believe it or not (due to the mod_i[mage]map vulnerability)
> I had uncloaked at least two customers still using this module,
> so people still want it.  That doesn't mean these should remain
> in the collection of recommended modules that come in the httpd
> tarball, however :)

delete them.

if they need them, they can go find them in old svn branches and use apxs.

it should be HARD to use server side image maps now days.

you could say, let it die.

but i prefer, help it die.

-Paul

Re: mod_cern_meta, mod_imagemap

[Paul Querna <ch...@force-elite.com>]

William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
> Any suggestions of how we can set up an 'extra' modules area for
> very simple modules such as cern_meta and imagemap which are so
> old and crusty, it isn't sensible to ever ship them in 2.4 or 3.0
> flavors of httpd?
> 
> Started to think about this, and realized that mod_ftp and similar
> elements of the httpd project are too "heavy" and approach for
> single source files with single doc pages.
> 
> Yes; believe it or not (due to the mod_i[mage]map vulnerability)
> I had uncloaked at least two customers still using this module,
> so people still want it.  That doesn't mean these should remain
> in the collection of recommended modules that come in the httpd
> tarball, however :)

delete them.

if they need them, they can go find them in old svn branches and use apxs.

it should be HARD to use server side image maps now days.

you could say, let it die.

but i prefer, help it die.

-Paul


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: docs-unsubscribe@httpd.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: docs-help@httpd.apache.org