Received: by taz.hyperreal.com (8.6.12/8.6.5) id NAA23284; Mon, 20 Nov 1995 13:09:10 -0800 Received: from shado.jaguNET.com by taz.hyperreal.com (8.6.12/8.6.5) with ESMTP id NAA23270; Mon, 20 Nov 1995 13:09:03 -0800 Received: (from jim@localhost) by shado.jaguNET.com (8.7.1/jmj-1.4) id QAA27802 for new-httpd@hyperreal.com; Mon, 20 Nov 1995 16:09:00 -0500 (EST) From: Jim Jagielski Message-Id: <199511202109.QAA27802@shado.jaguNET.com> Subject: Re: binary build question To: new-httpd@hyperreal.com Date: Mon, 20 Nov 1995 16:09:00 -0500 (EST) In-Reply-To: from "Brian Behlendorf" at Nov 20, 95 10:13:56 am X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24] Content-Type: text Sender: owner-new-httpd@apache.org Precedence: bulk Reply-To: new-httpd@apache.org Brian Behlendorf wrote: > > > What do people feel about this addition to the document about binary > builds: > > Compiling: The GNU C compiler (gcc) should be used whenever possible, > and with the -g flag set, so that we can ask people using binaries to provide > a backtrace if a coredump occurs. > Seems to me that users who lack the utilities (or effort) to compile Apache themselves will either lack the utilities to backtrace the core or lack the desire (or knowledge) to do so... It would be nice, but I would prefer having the binaries as tight as possible. -- Jim Jagielski << jim@jaguNET.com >> | "Stwike him Centuwian, vewy woughwy!" ** jaguNET Access Services ** | - Pontius Piwate ++ Email: info@jaguNET.com +++ Voice: 410-931-3157 ++ ++ http://www.jaguNET.com/ +++ Data: 931-7060 ("guest") ++