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/
