httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Cristian Gafton <>
Subject Re: apache/linux modules
Date Mon, 02 Feb 1998 21:27:40 GMT
On Mon, 2 Feb 1998, Marc Slemko wrote:

> I hate software like that because it is a royal pain to keep track of
> exactly how something is complied.

Autoconf will create for you a configure.log file
whcih will give you exactly that information. Which resembles remarkably
well with the current way of keeping track how things were compiled (which
is basically looking into the Configuration _and_ httpd.h files)

> If I can't go back and do the same
> thing I did before and get the same result, it is useless. 

I am not sure what you mean by that.

> A http_paths.h file or something that you could append any paths you want
> to be non-default would be useful (ie. distributed empty) and would make
> life easier in that respect, but it doesn't do everything.

You have to know that sometimes maintaining packages with patches is a
royal pain when the source changes and you have to port a
distribution-specific patch to the new code base. Yes, I am being selfish,
but somtimes is just cool to have a script or something with the command
line that will build apache for you without having to fiddle with

> Oh yea, while are are at it... _WHY_ are there so many reports of the
> RedHat RPM of Apache 1.2.x not giving text/html to .htm files?  The base
> version should...

Somehow a wrong /etc/mime.types file gets installed on that systems, and
.htm is not defined as being text/html type in that file. We are tracking
this thig down...

Best wishes,

Cristian Gafton   --   --   Red Hat Software, Inc.
 UNIX is user friendly. It's just selective about who its friends are.

View raw message