From: Jim Jagielski <jim@jaguNET.com>
Message-Id: <199706042155.RAA20168@devsys.jaguNET.com>
Subject: Re: Building binaries for 1.2
To: new-httpd@apache.org
Date: Wed, 4 Jun 1997 17:55:34 -0400 (EDT)
In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSF.3.95q.970604154749.24076B-100000@valis.worldgate.com>
 from "Marc Slemko" at Jun 4, 97 03:48:44 pm
Content-Type: text
Sender: new-httpd-owner@apache.org
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: new-httpd@apache.org

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
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.

-- 
====================================================================
      Jim Jagielski            |       jaguNET Access Services
     jim@jaguNET.com           |       http://www.jaguNET.com/
            "Look at me! I'm wearing a cardboard belt!"