httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From c...@decus.org (Rodent of Unusual Size)
Subject Re: Signatures, and sealing wax, and..
Date Tue, 12 Aug 1997 15:45:46 GMT
>From the fingers of Marc Slemko flowed the following:
>
>On Tue, 12 Aug 1997, Rodent of Unusual Size wrote:
>
>>     1. Binaries should be built with the vanilla Configuration (i.e.,
>>        no additional modules).  Possible exceptions: mod_status and
>>        mod_info?
>
>No.  I think they should be somewhere in the middle.  Thinks like
>mod_auth_db* (whichever is appropriate) should be there, things like proxy
>probably shouldn't.

    Fine with me; I'm just looking for some set of modules that *all* of
    the binary kits will have.  So if you put up a pre-built binary on
    your SunOS box and another on your FreeBSD next to it, both have the
    same functionality.

>> 
>>     2. httpd image should include platform name (maybe
>>        "httpd.`helpers/GuessOS`"?)
>
>Platform name is the way that the instructions have always said to do
>it...

    Okey, "never mind."  I just mentioned the "httpd.mumble" to make it
    clear what that file actually was: the httpd image itself.

>>     3. Tar files should be available compressed with compress(1) *and*
>>        gzip(1) (nothing new here).
>> 
>>     4. Compressed tarchives should have accompanying .md5 *and* .asc
>>        (PGP) signature files available.  (Yes, Ben, I know it's not as
>>        good as signing the uncompressed tarchive, but it means people
>>        can verify what they copy from the site w/o having to uncompress
>>        it first.)
>
>Erm... I don't think this is practical for the binary releases.

    Why not?  Which part is impractical?  It's something resembling what
    we did for 1.2.0..

>>     5. src/Configuration should use the platform's native cc(1) if it's
>>        considered good, and *not* gcc - unless the native cc is suspect
>>        or downright broken (HP-UX, can you hear me calling? ;-).
>
>I don't see the point in this.

    Lots of people on this list like, prefer, and use gcc (observation).
    But we're software goons and don't mind switching compilers at need.
    I don't think it's fair to require someone to install Yet Another
    Package just to compile according to *our* preferences, esp. if the
    bundled compiler does an adequate job.  Lowest common denominator.
    If someone doesn't have gcc installed, it is not the most trivial
    nor briefest installation in the world.  Let's not make it a
    requirement to reproduce our work.

    #ken    :-)}

Mime
View raw message