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. -aaron
