httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Brian Behlendorf <>
Subject RE: Script for building binary tarballs
Date Sat, 06 Jun 1998 03:58:04 GMT

At 10:54 AM 6/5/98 -0400, Rodent of Unusual Size wrote:
>I really don't like the inclusion of "usr/local/" in the path
>within the tarball. 

Me neither.  I don't understand, mainly because I haven't started using
./configure yet, why we can't have the binary distributions simply be the
results of "make", with the user left to do a "make install"?  I understand
there's the issue of the static path in suexec - IMHO a precompiled suexec
isn't a good idea for the binary distributions.

At 11:34 AM 6/5/98 -0400, Ben Hyde wrote:
>I like the binary tar files not having the source
>in them.

Not me.

>Don't let this effort hold up the release,
>as Brian said nt, lynx, solaius, and freebsd
>would be good though.

NT is still needed.  Lynx?  :)  Linux and Solaris 2.6 has been handled by
Lars, along with a bunch of other platforms, I'll put them all into place,
and do a FreeBSD 2.2.6 binary build.


pure chewing satisfaction                        

View raw message