httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Martin Kraemer <Martin.Krae...@mch.sni.de>
Subject Re: [PATCH] Configure to say how to make Configuration
Date Mon, 01 Dec 1997 21:32:11 GMT
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).

> I don't see anything worth making life more
> difficult by not including Configuration.
Agreed again. When I have to compile, I want to make my personal modules
cocktail, and the current defaults suggest "don't go without the enabled
modules, and select whatever you want in excess of the basic minimum".
Always looked very sensible to me. Let's stick with it.

For binary distributions, of course, the added Configuration should
match the modules mix as it was used to produce the binary.

    Martin
-- 
| S I E M E N S |  <Martin.Kraemer@mch.sni.de>  |      Siemens Nixdorf
| ------------- |   Voice: +49-89-636-46021     |  Informationssysteme AG
| N I X D O R F |   FAX:   +49-89-636-44994     |   81730 Munich, Germany
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~My opinions only, of course; pgp key available on request

Mime
View raw message