Reini Urban wrote:
Max Bowsher schrieb:
To my mind, a DLL is strongly preferable, because all packages using the
library pick up any fixes automatically, instead of requiring a
recompilation themselves.
fcgi does not build out of the box as shared library on any target.
Almost no other distr
Max Bowsher schrieb:
Reini Urban wrote:
Max Bowsher schrieb:
Reini Urban wrote:
I want to contribute and maintain the fastcgi library.
I compiled it just as static library, which is useful for apache2,
lighttpd, ruby, php and clisp. Maybe I might be persuaded to maintain a
dll (libfcgi0) also.
Reini Urban wrote:
> Max Bowsher schrieb:
>> Reini Urban wrote:
>>> I want to contribute and maintain the fastcgi library.
>>> I compiled it just as static library, which is useful for apache2,
>>> lighttpd, ruby, php and clisp. Maybe I might be persuaded to maintain a
>>> dll (libfcgi0) also.
>>
>
Max Bowsher schrieb:
Reini Urban wrote:
I want to contribute and maintain the fastcgi library.
I compiled it just as static library, which is useful for apache2,
lighttpd, ruby, php and clisp. Maybe I might be persuaded to maintain a
dll (libfcgi0) also.
I do not see how it would be useful for
Reini Urban wrote:
> I want to contribute and maintain the fastcgi library.
> I compiled it just as static library, which is useful for apache2,
> lighttpd, ruby, php and clisp. Maybe I might be persuaded to maintain a
> dll (libfcgi0) also.
I do not see how it would be useful for apache2.
Why a
I want to contribute and maintain the fastcgi library.
I compiled it just as static library, which is useful for apache2,
lighttpd, ruby, php and clisp. Maybe I might be persuaded to maintain a
dll (libfcgi0) also.
What:
http://xarch.tu-graz.ac.at/publ/cygwin/release/fcgi/fcgi-2.4.0-1-src.tar.
