httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From C...@PROCESS.COM (Rodent of Unusual Size)
Subject Re: [PATCH] Configure to say how to make Configuration
Date Thu, 01 Jan 1970 00:00:00 GMT
>From the fingers of Martin Kraemer flowed the following:
>
>On Mon, Dec 01, 1997 at 04:41:00PM -0400, Rodent of Unusual Size wrote:
>>     Sorry, the canonical list to which I was referring was the one
>>     proposed earlier (by Paul?  I forget) - namely, that all binary kits
>>     we build should have the *same* module list.  Whatever it includes,
>>     it thereby becomes canonical.
>
>Yes, that's why I brought the dbm/db question to the table: I have
>several OS's here which don't come with a db library. OTOH I assume
>recent *bsd systems don't use dbm any longer. The "canonical set"
>could therefore only be empty.

    For things like DB support, true.  But other modules don't have any
    dependencies upon the OS - such as the proxy, mod_setenvif,
    mod_mime, mod_alias, mod_acces, mod_rewrite, ...  Those can be
    included in the canonical set.

>>     Or do you think that the modules we include in our binary kits
>>     should vary from kit to kit?
>Nope, but given that problem, I think I better withdraw my idea to
>add a binary apackage for ReliantUnix  :-(

    If it was you intention to bundle some sort of mod_auth_*db*
    support, AND if the group agrees that binaries should all have the
    same module set, then I guess so.  But why couldn't you leave the
    *db* modules out of your ReliantUnix binary the way others would?

    #ken    p-)}

Mime
View raw message