Hi, * Justin Erenkrantz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006-01-10 09:22:18]:
> > I guess you've been using binaries compiled long ago, before the API > > breakage, but since a lot of improvments and changes in the APR during > > this period of time, I just wonder how the whole thing can > > work. > > No. The scripts use mod-mbox-util. Hum, it's a bit strange to have this fallback to the helper programs, anyway I'm pleased to know that this still works. > > Next, I would like to make you notice that these scripts do not belong > > the the module's source code because they are not useful and made for > > the mod_mbox user (as an admin) but only for an internal purpose. Thus > > I propose that we move the scripts directory one level up : > > I think they do belong and should be included in a release. Namely, I > don't buy Roy's arguments against including them. The potential benefit to > understanding how mod_mbox works outweighs the slight cost of including > some small scripts. If anyone ever bothers to rewrite them, more power to > them. However, not including *any* documentation or examples in the > tarball seems much worse than excluding these scripts. And having a bunch of non-understandable scripts is maybe worse : they make mod_mbox looks complicated, something it is not. Again, I don't see how these scripts help. There are not documented, and they don't seem to do much more than an rsync, some renaming/linking and calling mod-mbox-util. Having a dozen of scripts doing basically the same thing, without any documentation on how they work and on the mbox-archives.conf file you seem to provide them ... Nah, that's useless. If one is able to build mod_mbox and make Apache use it, he is also able to setup his archives as described in the online documentation. - Sam -- Maxime Petazzoni (http://www.bulix.org) -- gone crazy, back soon. leave message.
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
