httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "William A. Rowe, Jr." <>
Subject Re: AW: restructuring mod_ssl as an overlay
Date Thu, 08 Jun 2006 17:13:25 GMT
Jeff Trawick wrote:
> Just curious: does anybody in that boat actually think that anything
> we httpd-ers could do with packaging httpd (binaries, SSL,etc.) would
> conceivably compete with what our employers are providing?  (I find
> that preposterous personally)

rofl - no.

I will say this; the people who are wildly waving their arms "no more
binaries" are the same people who, surprise, haven't contributed binaries
to httpd, at least not lately (little surprise).

Yes this affects win32, and solaris pkg's and rpm's and a whole lot of other
things in /dist/httpd/binaries/...

There are some platforms (e.g. Linux) where you always have a compiler, and
it seems linux biggots are the loudest "no binaries!" camp.  Then there are
others where installing a compiler varies between argrivating (solaris) to
expensive.  If it's not "encumbered", why not distribute a binary someone
is willing to build, as opposed to arguing over the merits of them.

Of -course- if nobody cares to contribute a binary for platform Foo, such
is life.  Now nearly every major open source project that supports OS/X and
Win32 ships binaries for OS/X and Win32, and some folks happened to have
built those, and others.  Oooh... I almost forgot, platforms where compilers
come along and are still aggrivating to use ;-)

Encumbered; e.g. who's built a binary that is sitting in dist that has -lssl
-lcrypto?  I'm betting quite a few, I just don't feel like tearing that tree
apart this month.

I think this is getting absurd, Roy says "don't ship binaries" as one extreme
reaction (not in a negative context, but an observation) and all the aolusers
chime in.  Either binaries float your boat or they don't.  Isn't the httpd
project about scratching your own itch?

Anyways, I've come to the conclusion that the httpd project's decided, based
on a few voices today, that it will not ship openssl binaries in particular.
How this differs from shipping libexpat, libz or libpcre binaries is beyond
my grasp, other than some recordkeeping.  But if that's concensus become
policy, then I'm happy to ditch any effort to provide win32 users mod_ssl.
You folks really aren't worth this aggrivation.


View raw message