On Fri, Jul 20, 2012 at 1:56 PM, Steinar H. Gunderson <se...@samfundet.no> wrote: > On Fri, Jul 20, 2012 at 01:48:33PM -0400, Jeff Trawick wrote: >>> Why would you keep mpm-itk separate but mod_privileges not? >> >> IMO it is not a very relevant question given the big picture: >> >> * Most modules written for httpd are not bundled with the server or >> otherwise hosted/developed at the ASF. >> * mod_privileges is for a minority server operating system and is not >> used extensively even there. >> * You won't find much rhyme or reason to why some modules are bundled >> and some are not other than whether or the author has commit access, >> and even then there isn't much consistency. > > I'm not sure if I understand this. Should not “the module is considered > useful” be a better criteria than “the module is written by someone with > commit access”? And how can “the module has a very small user base” be an > argument _for_ keeping it in trunk, and the more popular one out?
I don't think there's much to understand; you can point at the current slate of included and excluded modules that we ended up with after 15 or so years of development and read from that anything you want (or read nothing from it, as I suggest). > If nothing else, should not a module that's patched in by a significant > fraction be pulled into the main tree, to lighten the burden on distributors? Distributors can generally take care of themselves. Some active httpd developers represent distributors of httpd, and they can jump in and help if they think the technical justification and integration burden warrant. >> As far as mpm-itk: A few hooks can be added to httpd core so that it >> can be enabled just like other modules*, whether or not anyone here >> cares about the implementation details. >> >> *Of course that isn't really true of the popular 2.2.x branch, but I >> don't think it is realistic to hope that mpm-itk would ever make it to >> 2.2.x anyway. > > If we can really get mpm-itk compilable out-of-tree without Apache patches, > that would certainly be a better situation than what we have today. > (The situation with 2.2.x will work itself out in time, of course, > as distributions and users slowly migrate to 2.4.x.) > >> By the way, did any other httpd-ers have a look at those patches and >> have suggestions for what hooks could be added? > > I don't know how many have actually looked at the code in detail; there was > some light review around the time of the initial 2.4.x port, but I generally > do not receive a lot of feedback on the httpd integration itself. I guess > it's not a part that make a lot of people excited. I'll try to make some progress with API extensions anyway if nobody speaks up soon. > > /* Steinar */ > -- > Homepage: http://www.sesse.net/ > -- Born in Roswell... married an alien... http://emptyhammock.com/
