httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jim Jagielski <...@jaguNET.com>
Subject Re: [PATCH] Configure to say how to make Configuration
Date Mon, 01 Dec 1997 22:11:29 GMT
Martin Kraemer wrote:
> 
> On Mon, Dec 01, 1997 at 10:30:45AM -0700, Marc Slemko wrote:
> > No.  The idea is that with a source distribution, there is no reason to
> > include extraneous modules because all they do is add bloat and bugs.  The
> > only reason they are included with a binary distribition is because of the
> > idea that if someone can't get a C compiler, they aren't likely to be
> > overly concerned about bloat and the tradeoff is acceptable.  There is no
> > need to make any such tradeoff when they can compile it themself.  
> 
> I go with Marc's position, because I have felt the same way with binary
> vs. source packages. With a binary package, it's nice to have the freedom
> to be able to use extra modules (which would otherwise require
> recompilation, which is what consumers of binary packages DON'T want or
> they would have gotten the source package in the first place).
> 

My own personal feeling is that the pre-built binaries should be as
small and simple as possible, since that's most likely the type
of site that would be using it. Sites that need modules like database
auth and other goodies most likely have what it takes to build their
own binary. Our pre-builts should NOT have as much stuff as possible.

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

Mime
View raw message