Aaron Bannert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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 binbuild.sh to use such an option (--static-httpd) but I don't have a technical argument behind that. Do we all violently agree? -- Jeff Trawick | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | PGP public key at web site: http://www.geocities.com/SiliconValley/Park/9289/ Born in Roswell... married an alien...