httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Marc Slemko <ma...@worldgate.com>
Subject Re: apache/linux modules
Date Mon, 02 Feb 1998 21:39:37 GMT
On Mon, 2 Feb 1998, Cristian Gafton wrote:

> > We provide reasonable defaults in Configuration.  ./Configure from a
> > freshly unpacked apache should provide a working program on most systems. 
> > The exceptions are those that vary greatly from one distribution to
> > another (i.e. linux)... and that I've tried to deal with in 1.3. 
> 
> Try to look at this from a distribution maintainer point of view. We'd
> like to be able to ship aoache modules for Red Hat systems to include
> postgres support, other cool stuff, without having to rebuild the apache
> binary package every time... It is not only cool, buty it will make apache
> easy to deploy on a lot of other cases (think about products like miniSQL,
> mySQL, Solid server, etc, shipping their version of apache module and all
> you have to do is to stick it into a directory and apache will start using
> it..)

Let me just add to this discussion that, despite negative reaction about
ways to do things, I think we fully support this concept and making it
easier for vendors to package and change module configuration without
recompiling.  Various packages of Apache have to do a lot of things right
now that they simply shouldn't have to.  It is just a matter of being
leery of certain methods which aren't really well-liked.

Right now, however, you also have the limited module magic number scheme
that is unnecessarily harsh on binary compatibility between versions of
things. 



Mime
View raw message