Return-Path: Delivered-To: new-httpd-archive@hyperreal.org Received: (qmail 13619 invoked by uid 6000); 5 Jun 1998 14:49:27 -0000 Received: (qmail 13602 invoked from network); 5 Jun 1998 14:49:25 -0000 Received: from ns2.remulak.net (HELO Mail.Golux.Com) (root@198.115.138.27) by taz.hyperreal.org with SMTP; 5 Jun 1998 14:49:25 -0000 Received: from Golux.Com (p1.ts3.nashu.NH.tiac.com [207.60.111.130]) by Mail.Golux.Com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id KAA07633; Fri, 5 Jun 1998 10:47:28 -0400 Message-ID: <3578068C.FA1264C9@Golux.Com> Date: Fri, 05 Jun 1998 10:54:04 -0400 From: Rodent of Unusual Size Organization: The Apache Group X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.04 [en] (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: new-httpd@apache.org Subject: Re: binbuild.sh: Script for building binary tarballs References: <19980605104504.A2561@engelschall.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: new-httpd-owner@apache.org Precedence: bulk Reply-To: new-httpd@apache.org Ralf S. Engelschall wrote: > > And then a tarball apache_1.3.0-i386-whatever-freebsd2.2.6.tar.gz is made > > :> ls -l apache_1.3.0-i386-whatever-freebsd2.2.6.tar.gz > -rw-r--r-- 1 rse users 688002 Jun 5 10:41 apache_1.3.0-i386-whatever-freebsd2.2.6.tar.gz > > which contains > > :> gunzip drwxr-xr-x rse/users 0 Jun 5 10:40 1998 usr/ > drwxr-xr-x rse/users 0 Jun 5 10:40 1998 usr/local/ > drwxr-xr-x rse/users 0 Jun 5 10:40 1998 usr/local/apache/ > drwxr-xr-x rse/users 0 Jun 5 10:40 1998 usr/local/apache/bin/ > -rwxr-xr-x rse/users 12288 Jun 5 10:40 1998 usr/local/apache/bin/htpasswd > -rwxr-xr-x rse/users 16384 Jun 5 10:40 1998 usr/local/apache/bin/htdigest > -rwxr-xr-x rse/users 6419 Jun 5 10:40 1998 usr/local/apache/bin/dbmmanage > drwxr-xr-x rse/users 0 Jun 5 10:40 1998 usr/local/apache/sbin/ > -rwxr-xr-x rse/users 274432 Jun 5 10:40 1998 usr/local/apache/sbin/httpd I really don't like the inclusion of "usr/local/" in the path within the tarball. If someone unpacks this elsewhere than at /, it's going to get two useless and empty levels of hierarchy. Also, and more important, the 'binary' tarballs have *always* contained the source tree from which the binary was built. Unless I'm missing something, the source *isn't* included in yours. 'Binary' tarballs have really been "source-plus" rather than "binary-minimum." Other than that, it looks like a clean solution (though I haven't tried it). We need to get buy-in from everyone who's going to be providing a binary that they'll use the same method, whether it's this new APACI script or the old binbuild one. #ken P-)} Ken Coar Apache Group member "Apache Server for Dummies"