httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Rodent of Unusual Size <Ken.C...@Golux.Com>
Subject Re: Source in .msi packages
Date Wed, 05 Dec 2001 19:31:29 GMT
"William A. Rowe, Jr." wrote:
> 
> So I started to look at how we distribute source in other
> binary packages.

You mean other ASF packages, other open-source packages, or
specifically the httpd project packages?

> While reviewing those changes to the 2.0 package, I looked
> at how we package both 1.3 and 2.0 on Unix.  And I discovered
> that the inclusion of the src tree was relatively non-existant.
> The unix httpd binaries were just that (binary).

Uh?  In <URL:http://www.apache.org/dist/httpd/binaries/linux/>
(for instance), *all* of the .tar.gz files contain the source.
(You can't count how we've done the 2.0 packages because we haven't
released it yet; in 1.3b days, the main difference between a binary
and an alpha was that we built and included a binary 'httpd' for the
former -- but the source was still in the tarball.)

The issue was whether we included a binary with the always-supplied
source, not whether we included the source with a binary.  It's
this basic change in how we distribute our work on which I'm
trying to get a handle.

> And those with both requirements aren't left out - they do
> the same as any unix admin who wants sources and the binaries,
> grab 'em both.

Which is what appears to be the departure, the discussion of which
I want to read.

> There is no way to continue to proliferate this.

Explain that remark, please.. I don't think I understand
what you mean.
-- 
#ken	P-)}

Ken Coar, Sanagendamgagwedweinini  http://Golux.Com/coar/
Author, developer, opinionist      http://Apache-Server.Com/

"All right everyone!  Step away from the glowing hamburger!"

Mime
View raw message