You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@apr.apache.org by Greg Stein <gs...@lyra.org> on 2002/11/13 03:06:34 UTC
Re: Issue #872 -- who wants to do it?
On Tue, Nov 12, 2002 at 01:50:51PM +0100, Branko Cibej wrote:
> Greg Stein wrote:
>...
> >*optionally* using iconv should be no problem. It just gets hairy when you
> >require the thing. I don't see a reason that patches for optional linkage
> >would be rejected...
>
> Well, I had done exactly that before, and got shot down -- IIRC by wrowe
> and rbb -- on the grounds that we shouldn't encourage people to use GPL
> stuff, that the ASF had "invested" in apr-iconv and so getting it up to
> speed should be a priority...
>
> I don't see how they can explain the support for the system iconv on
> Unix then, but the impression I got was a big "-1" waiting around the
> corner.
Hunh. That isn't a technical justification for a veto, so it really ought to
be able to go in. Hell, I can technically justify it's addition, so let's
hear the opposite :-)
I'd say, figure out or resurrect the optional stuff and propose it again.
Without it, the stuff is non-functional. If somebody wants to get it
working, then more power to 'em, but "avoid a license" shouldn't stop code
from simply working.
Cheers,
-g
--
Greg Stein, http://www.lyra.org/
Re: Issue #872 -- who wants to do it?
Posted by "William A. Rowe, Jr." <wr...@apache.org>.
At 01:12 PM 11/13/2002, Brane wrote:
>William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
>> If we plug in some ./configure style choices for the 'non-unix' platforms,
>>that earns my wholehearted +1. In this case, it's nothing less than you
>>can do when using ./configure on unix to a GNU distro of iconv.
>This last is what I had in mind, yes; but note that this has to be done at build time, and that the person who creates the binaries would have to use GNU libiconv sources or a pre-built library.
Of course. We just know that won't happen at the ASF, which is why
the push for a FreeBSD port instead.
>> And bravo and congrats to Brane... excelent work on the Win32 build
>>schema for Win32 apr-iconv!
>Thanks; I try. With a bit of luck, I may even get apr-iconv to a useful state on Windows. :-)
You're welcome. I'm playing with kicking off the makefile today ;-)
If this works in the next day or three, I'd like to see it go into the
Apache 2.0.44 release.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Re: Issue #872 -- who wants to do it?
Posted by Karl Fogel <kf...@newton.ch.collab.net>.
"William A. Rowe, Jr." <wr...@apache.org> writes:
> However, if we choose to 'distribute' code, e.g. binary builds, and those
> would (by virtue of our choices) require a GPL distribution, that's not only
> earning a non-technical -1, but an outright outrageous position for the
> Chairman of the ASF to hold. Of course, I don't suppose that is what
> you meant in this message.
>
> If we plug in some ./configure style choices for the 'non-unix' platforms,
> that earns my wholehearted +1. In this case, it's nothing less than you
> can do when using ./configure on unix to a GNU distro of iconv.
This was about the latter, yes.
Re: Issue #872 -- who wants to do it?
Posted by Karl Fogel <kf...@newton.ch.collab.net>.
"William A. Rowe, Jr." <wr...@apache.org> writes:
> However, if we choose to 'distribute' code, e.g. binary builds, and those
> would (by virtue of our choices) require a GPL distribution, that's not only
> earning a non-technical -1, but an outright outrageous position for the
> Chairman of the ASF to hold. Of course, I don't suppose that is what
> you meant in this message.
>
> If we plug in some ./configure style choices for the 'non-unix' platforms,
> that earns my wholehearted +1. In this case, it's nothing less than you
> can do when using ./configure on unix to a GNU distro of iconv.
This was about the latter, yes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Re: Issue #872 -- who wants to do it?
Posted by "William A. Rowe, Jr." <wr...@apache.org>.
At 01:12 PM 11/13/2002, Brane wrote:
>William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
>> If we plug in some ./configure style choices for the 'non-unix' platforms,
>>that earns my wholehearted +1. In this case, it's nothing less than you
>>can do when using ./configure on unix to a GNU distro of iconv.
>This last is what I had in mind, yes; but note that this has to be done at build time, and that the person who creates the binaries would have to use GNU libiconv sources or a pre-built library.
Of course. We just know that won't happen at the ASF, which is why
the push for a FreeBSD port instead.
>> And bravo and congrats to Brane... excelent work on the Win32 build
>>schema for Win32 apr-iconv!
>Thanks; I try. With a bit of luck, I may even get apr-iconv to a useful state on Windows. :-)
You're welcome. I'm playing with kicking off the makefile today ;-)
If this works in the next day or three, I'd like to see it go into the
Apache 2.0.44 release.
Re: Issue #872 -- who wants to do it?
Posted by Branko Čibej <br...@xbc.nu>.
William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
>Greg,
>
> if there is a way to plug in code into apr, apr-util, httpd, or any other
>ASF project after the fact, then I'm +1 on choices (GNU? MS? Sun?
>Who cares???)
>
> However, if we choose to 'distribute' code, e.g. binary builds, and those
>would (by virtue of our choices) require a GPL distribution, that's not only
>earning a non-technical -1, but an outright outrageous position for the
>Chairman of the ASF to hold. Of course, I don't suppose that is what
>you meant in this message.
>
> If we plug in some ./configure style choices for the 'non-unix' platforms,
>that earns my wholehearted +1. In this case, it's nothing less than you
>can do when using ./configure on unix to a GNU distro of iconv.
>
This last is what I had in mind, yes; but note that this has to be done
at build time, and that the person who creates the binaries would have
to use GNU libiconv sources or a pre-built library.
> And bravo and congrats to Brane... excelent work on the Win32 build
>schema for Win32 apr-iconv!
>
Thanks; I try. With a bit of luck, I may even get apr-iconv to a useful
state on Windows. :-)
Brane
Re: Issue #872 -- who wants to do it?
Posted by Branko Čibej <br...@xbc.nu>.
William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
>Greg,
>
> if there is a way to plug in code into apr, apr-util, httpd, or any other
>ASF project after the fact, then I'm +1 on choices (GNU? MS? Sun?
>Who cares???)
>
> However, if we choose to 'distribute' code, e.g. binary builds, and those
>would (by virtue of our choices) require a GPL distribution, that's not only
>earning a non-technical -1, but an outright outrageous position for the
>Chairman of the ASF to hold. Of course, I don't suppose that is what
>you meant in this message.
>
> If we plug in some ./configure style choices for the 'non-unix' platforms,
>that earns my wholehearted +1. In this case, it's nothing less than you
>can do when using ./configure on unix to a GNU distro of iconv.
>
This last is what I had in mind, yes; but note that this has to be done
at build time, and that the person who creates the binaries would have
to use GNU libiconv sources or a pre-built library.
> And bravo and congrats to Brane... excelent work on the Win32 build
>schema for Win32 apr-iconv!
>
Thanks; I try. With a bit of luck, I may even get apr-iconv to a useful
state on Windows. :-)
Brane
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Re: Issue #872 -- who wants to do it?
Posted by "William A. Rowe, Jr." <wr...@apache.org>.
Greg,
if there is a way to plug in code into apr, apr-util, httpd, or any other
ASF project after the fact, then I'm +1 on choices (GNU? MS? Sun?
Who cares???)
However, if we choose to 'distribute' code, e.g. binary builds, and those
would (by virtue of our choices) require a GPL distribution, that's not only
earning a non-technical -1, but an outright outrageous position for the
Chairman of the ASF to hold. Of course, I don't suppose that is what
you meant in this message.
If we plug in some ./configure style choices for the 'non-unix' platforms,
that earns my wholehearted +1. In this case, it's nothing less than you
can do when using ./configure on unix to a GNU distro of iconv.
And bravo and congrats to Brane... excelent work on the Win32 build
schema for Win32 apr-iconv!
Bill
At 08:06 PM 11/12/2002, Greg Stein wrote:
>On Tue, Nov 12, 2002 at 01:50:51PM +0100, Branko Cibej wrote:
>> Greg Stein wrote:
>>...
>> >*optionally* using iconv should be no problem. It just gets hairy when you
>> >require the thing. I don't see a reason that patches for optional linkage
>> >would be rejected...
>>
>> Well, I had done exactly that before, and got shot down -- IIRC by wrowe
>> and rbb -- on the grounds that we shouldn't encourage people to use GPL
>> stuff, that the ASF had "invested" in apr-iconv and so getting it up to
>> speed should be a priority...
>>
>> I don't see how they can explain the support for the system iconv on
>> Unix then, but the impression I got was a big "-1" waiting around the
>> corner.
>
>Hunh. That isn't a technical justification for a veto, so it really ought to
>be able to go in. Hell, I can technically justify it's addition, so let's
>hear the opposite :-)
>
>I'd say, figure out or resurrect the optional stuff and propose it again.
>
>Without it, the stuff is non-functional. If somebody wants to get it
>working, then more power to 'em, but "avoid a license" shouldn't stop code
>from simply working.
>
>Cheers,
>-g
>
>--
>Greg Stein, http://www.lyra.org/
Re: Issue #872 -- who wants to do it?
Posted by "William A. Rowe, Jr." <wr...@apache.org>.
Greg,
if there is a way to plug in code into apr, apr-util, httpd, or any other
ASF project after the fact, then I'm +1 on choices (GNU? MS? Sun?
Who cares???)
However, if we choose to 'distribute' code, e.g. binary builds, and those
would (by virtue of our choices) require a GPL distribution, that's not only
earning a non-technical -1, but an outright outrageous position for the
Chairman of the ASF to hold. Of course, I don't suppose that is what
you meant in this message.
If we plug in some ./configure style choices for the 'non-unix' platforms,
that earns my wholehearted +1. In this case, it's nothing less than you
can do when using ./configure on unix to a GNU distro of iconv.
And bravo and congrats to Brane... excelent work on the Win32 build
schema for Win32 apr-iconv!
Bill
At 08:06 PM 11/12/2002, Greg Stein wrote:
>On Tue, Nov 12, 2002 at 01:50:51PM +0100, Branko Cibej wrote:
>> Greg Stein wrote:
>>...
>> >*optionally* using iconv should be no problem. It just gets hairy when you
>> >require the thing. I don't see a reason that patches for optional linkage
>> >would be rejected...
>>
>> Well, I had done exactly that before, and got shot down -- IIRC by wrowe
>> and rbb -- on the grounds that we shouldn't encourage people to use GPL
>> stuff, that the ASF had "invested" in apr-iconv and so getting it up to
>> speed should be a priority...
>>
>> I don't see how they can explain the support for the system iconv on
>> Unix then, but the impression I got was a big "-1" waiting around the
>> corner.
>
>Hunh. That isn't a technical justification for a veto, so it really ought to
>be able to go in. Hell, I can technically justify it's addition, so let's
>hear the opposite :-)
>
>I'd say, figure out or resurrect the optional stuff and propose it again.
>
>Without it, the stuff is non-functional. If somebody wants to get it
>working, then more power to 'em, but "avoid a license" shouldn't stop code
>from simply working.
>
>Cheers,
>-g
>
>--
>Greg Stein, http://www.lyra.org/
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org