httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Marc Slemko <>
Subject Re: Building binaries for 1.2
Date Thu, 05 Jun 1997 15:56:13 GMT
On Wed, 4 Jun 1997, Jim Jagielski wrote:

> Marc Slemko wrote:
> > 
> > I think a standard way of doing it is really a good thing...
> > 
> > Like it or not, people view the binaries as very important because they
> > can't type two lines.  A standard config should be made.  All it takes is
> > a couple of rules plus a standard Configuration file.
> Unless we define "standard" as the default modules plus info and
> status then I disagree. Not only that, but the "markets" for each

"standard" would be the default + something, probably including info and
status and perhaps some other things.

> system is widely different. A "standard" build for Solaris, for
> example, might make sense to include extra modules since they
> will be used on more powerful machines. Adding these to a build
> for NeXT or A/UX make not make sense. I would guess that anyone
> who takes the responsibility of making a build for an OS should
> also have the responsibility of knowing what the "general market"
> would want in those builds.

I simply think some standardization would be good, with local variations
as necessary.  Some people will want to include every single module in a
build, which is not necessary and can cause problems (eg. mod_cookie).  As
soon as I get a chance, I will make a Configuration file up that I will
use for all the builds I do; I will post it, any comments on changes will
be listened to and anyone who wants to use it for making their binary
builds will be encouraged to do so... if others want to make their own up
that's fine.

View raw message