Re: Issue #872 -- who wants to do it?

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/
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org