Subject: Re: CVS commit: src/libexec/httpd
To: Mindaugas R. <>
From: Bill Stouder-Studenmund <>
List: tech-userlevel
Date: 10/16/2007 15:07:47
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Tue, Oct 16, 2007 at 11:52:59PM +0300, Mindaugas R. wrote:
> Bill Stouder-Studenmund <> wrote:
> > 1) Reduce duplication. By having it in base, we reduce patch maintenanc=
> > duplication and other bits of code maintenance. We reduce the effort to=
> > make it cross-compile since it is part of base.
> Reduce patch maintenance? I guess more for Wasabi than other developers :)

I did not say that we are doing this for Wasabi.  I agree that doing this
for any one specific vendor would be a mistake.

But we aren't doing this for one vendor. We aren't doing this for two=20
vendors. We're doing this because a number of NetBSD users, both=20
organizations and individuals, use bozohttpd and because a developer wants=
to check it in.

> > 2) Provide something out of the box that a number of folks want.
> - Keeping in mind the emails on the mailing-lists, I doubt;

Please note my choice of words. "A number" does not mean most. It does not=
necessarily mean many. It means more than a few. Thus to disprove, you=20
really have to do an exhaustive review of who wants what. You have not=20
done this.

> - I do not think that many users in our community are interested on this;

Yes, but how many of them really care one way or the other?

> - User should decide what software he wants to use;

So? The fact that it's in base doesn't mean you have to use it. :-)

> > > I do not think it is a good way to import such applications into the =
> > > source tree, at least while there is no appropriate support for syspk=
> >=20
> > Why? I agree we don't want to put everything in base. But on a=20
> > case-by-case basis, I think it's fine if not appropriate to put stuff i=
> > base. This seems like a good fit for base.
> - This software is not NetBSD-specific, that is, it does not need some
>   services of our kernel;

This description covers a number of things we have in base.

> - I think a better abstraction is to separate third party applications, a=
>   provide packages. Putting the software into the source base requires
>   additional maintaining, not vice-versa;

I doubt that for this code. I agree that there are a number of apps for=20
which it could well be a problem. But not this one.

Also, if bozohttpd turns into a maintenance mess, well: 1) its author is a=
devel and probably can be persuaded to fix it, and 2) it's rather simple=20
so something REALLY weird has to be happening if it turns into a=20
maintenance mess. :-)

> - Again, as a user I wont have a software in the base which perhaps never
>   ever going to use;

So exactly how much of base do you rip out after an install? :-)

Take care,


Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
Content-Disposition: inline

Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (NetBSD)