On Monday 21 June 2010, Dan Poirier wrote:
> On 2010-06-10 at 16:46, Stefan Fritsch <[email protected]> wrote:
> > On Monday 07 June 2010, Rainer Jung wrote:
> >> - build "most" module set by default.
> >>
> >> Alternatives are:
> >> - all
> >> - few (same set as was default before the change)
> >> - none
> >
> > I would like to have an option for developers/testers that builds
> > every module that can be built with the currently installed
> > libraries. The attached patch adds a "reallyall" set. My auto-fu
> > could be better but the patch works for me (tm). Of course, I am
> > open for better names than reallyall.
>
> Seems to work for me.
>
> But is there any reason why we couldn't just make "all" actually
> build all? And I would suggest if there's not a really good
> reason, we should just fix "all" to do what it obviously should.
> That should be easy now, just delete the current "all" and rename
> the new "reallyall" to "all".
I would prefer "all" to be everything except those modules that are
only useful for developers:
mod_optional_*_{im,ex}port
mod_bucketeer
examples/mod*
And maybe those that are really not in any usable state or have no
usecase yet:
mod_proxy_fdpass (unless some consumer exists)
mod_serf (doesn't seem stable, but this is not a strong opionion)
If we change "all", do we still want to activate all those modules in
the generated default config?
BTW, is there a better name for "reallyall" that makes clear that it
is geared towards developers? I thought "lint" (suggested by someone
on the list) didn't sound descriptive enough to me. But maybe it's
still better than "reallyall".
