httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jeff Trawick <traw...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Module build defaults for trunk
Date Thu, 03 Jun 2010 13:28:18 GMT
On Thu, Jun 3, 2010 at 7:46 AM, Eric Covener <covener@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Thu, Jun 3, 2010 at 7:30 AM, Rainer Jung <rainer.jung@kippdata.de>
> wrote:
> > Reading the feedback on the modules list I posted got me into thinking:
> >
> > 1) Should static module linking be still the default for httpd building?
> >
> > Of course the question is only relevant for platforms which allow dynamic
> > linking and if we have APR_HAS_DSO. I know that static linking is
> expected
> > to be more secure (but we still build mod_so by default) and a bit more
> > performant. On the other hand it seems most of the world actually uses a
> > dynamically linked httpd and the flexibility it provides during runtime.
> So
> > isn't it time to switch to dynamic by default - if the platform supports
> it
> > - and only build static on demand?
>
> +1 on dynamic by default when APR_HAS_DSO
>
> > I wonder whether some notion of "most" would be a better build default -
> but
> > maybe not enabling the built modules by default.
> >
> > So there would be "most" (default), "all" and "minimal".
>
>
> +1 on default == most.
>
> (agree with Nick re: 2.2.x as ewll)
>
>
Here's a missing piece:  A good generic httpd build has DSOs for all modules
that could work on the system, but a nice httpd.conf loads only the modules
that are necessary.  Meanwhile, our module build system assumes that you
wish to actively use the modules specified when you invoke configure.

Different distros handle this in different ways, but the generic user who
just wants to get past ./configure without doing anything stupid most likely
ends up with many modules loaded which won't be used (extra security
exposure, CPU, and memory).

Mime
View raw message