Return-Path: 
 <dev-return-53620-apmail-httpd-dev-archive=httpd.apache.org@httpd.apache.org>
Delivered-To: apmail-httpd-dev-archive@www.apache.org
Received: (qmail 53886 invoked from network); 8 Jun 2006 20:26:42 -0000
Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (209.237.227.199)
  by minotaur.apache.org with SMTP; 8 Jun 2006 20:26:42 -0000
Received: (qmail 6738 invoked by uid 500); 8 Jun 2006 20:26:39 -0000
Delivered-To: apmail-httpd-dev-archive@httpd.apache.org
Received: (qmail 6499 invoked by uid 500); 8 Jun 2006 20:26:37 -0000
Mailing-List: contact dev-help@httpd.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@httpd.apache.org
list-help: <mailto:dev-help@httpd.apache.org>
list-unsubscribe: <mailto:dev-unsubscribe@httpd.apache.org>
List-Post: <mailto:dev@httpd.apache.org>
List-Id: <dev.httpd.apache.org>
Delivered-To: mailing list dev@httpd.apache.org
Received: (qmail 6487 invoked by uid 99); 8 Jun 2006 20:26:37 -0000
Received: from asf.osuosl.org (HELO asf.osuosl.org) (140.211.166.49)
    by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Thu, 08 Jun 2006 13:26:37 -0700
X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=10.0
	tests=
X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org
Received: from [209.237.227.194] (HELO minotaur.apache.org) (209.237.227.194)
    by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with SMTP; Thu, 08 Jun 2006 13:26:36 -0700
Received: (qmail 53813 invoked by uid 2161); 8 Jun 2006 20:26:16 -0000
Received: from [192.168.2.4] (euler.heimnetz.de [192.168.2.4])
	by cerberus.heimnetz.de (Postfix on SuSE Linux 7.0 (i386)) with ESMTP id
 4D38E1721C
	for <dev@httpd.apache.org>; Thu,  8 Jun 2006 22:26:06 +0200 (CEST)
Message-ID: <448887F1.1020308@apache.org>
Date: Thu, 08 Jun 2006 22:26:25 +0200
From: Ruediger Pluem <rpluem@apache.org>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.7.13) Gecko/20060417
X-Accept-Language: de, en, de-de, en-gb, cy, zu, xh
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: dev@httpd.apache.org
Subject: Re: AW: restructuring mod_ssl as an overlay
References: 
 <F6E88684A95CDB4DBBD5B9F4C1C4B09B020EB335@vis01-mx02.vis.internal.vodafone.com>
	 <4488115D.7090004@rowe-clan.net>
 <cc67648e0606080737k5e3b3c51t134732cd9672a5c7@mail.gmail.com>
 <44885AB5.9010901@rowe-clan.net>
In-Reply-To: <44885AB5.9010901@rowe-clan.net>
X-Enigmail-Version: 0.90.2.0
X-Enigmail-Supports: pgp-inline, pgp-mime
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org
X-Spam-Rating: minotaur.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N



On 06/08/2006 07:13 PM, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:

> 
> 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).

This is true, but I do not think that people are against binaries as such, they
(including me) do not like certain consequences that seem to arise from providing
binaries like the discussed need to move mod_ssl to a subproject. So they favour
not having to deal with the consequences over providing binaries.

As you stated yourself in a different mail on this subject, binaries are a convience
not an expectation.

<cite different mail>
>
> And that I agree we need to make clear -everywhere- that
> binaries are a convience, provided as a gift of one of the voulenteer project
> members, not an expectation.  Some users have had misassumptions on this front
> in the not-to-distant past.  Suggestions welcome.
</cite>

This is also my view.

> 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

libpcre:  As I took from earlier discussion on the list we have special requirements
          in libpcre and most stock libpcre will not work. Furthermore I think it
          is not possible to build a version of httpd that does not need libpcre.

libz:     Convenience on platforms where the OS does not deliver it (mostly windows?).
          As far as I can see this is only needed if you want to build mod_deflate.

libexpat: Also convenience. Although XML seems to be only needed for mod_dav I am not quite
          sure if you can build httpd without libexpat.

But there is a big difference to openssl: Providing these libraries does not result in similar
legal pain as providing openssl and has no further consequences for the project that at least
some people not like.


Regards

Rüdiger