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
