httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jeff Trawick <>
Subject Re: [PATCH] enable static support binaries at build-time
Date Fri, 08 Feb 2002 15:43:31 GMT
Aaron Bannert <> writes:

> On Thu, Feb 07, 2002 at 02:12:42PM -0800, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
> > On Thu, Feb 07, 2002 at 01:23:08PM -0800, Aaron Bannert wrote:
> > > This does _not_ add support for a static httpd, since that issue is
> > > not yet decided, but it should solve 7 of the 8 binaries that Ken was
> > > worried about. The "should httpd also be static" discussion can happen
> > > independently of this patch.
> > 
> > Personally, I agree that the httpd *can* be static, but not that
> > it *should* be static.  Can we just go ahead and add that while we're
> > at it?  IMHO, the real discussion is what is the default.  -- justin
> I'm not so sure that it can be static on all platforms in the first place.
> My main concern is a missing symbol required by a module that isn't
> available in httpd or properly exported, which causes a runtime failure
> at some unknown time *after* the server appears to successfully start;
> but this could just be paranoia on my part.
> I'd also rather not allow this discussion to block the above patch,
> since I think we'd all agree that it is acceptable.

Damn straight.  Commit already :)

Like Justin, I think it is goodness to have a configure option like
--static-httpd.  Obviously such a thought has no bearing on the patch
you posted.

I have the *feeling* that it is not good for to use such
an option (--static-httpd) but I don't have a technical argument
behind that.

Do we all violently agree?

Jeff Trawick | | PGP public key at web site:
             Born in Roswell... married an alien...

View raw message