On Monday 21 June 2010, Dan Poirier wrote:
On 2010-06-10 at 16:46, Stefan Fritsch s...@sfritsch.de wrote:
On Monday 07 June 2010, Rainer Jung wrote:
- build most module set by default.
Alternatives are:
- all
- few (same set as was default before the change)
- none
On 2010-06-21 at 14:32, Stefan Fritsch s...@sfritsch.de wrote:
On Monday 21 June 2010, Dan Poirier wrote:
But is there any reason why we couldn't just make all actually
build all? And I would suggest if there's not a really good
reason, we should just fix all to do what it obviously should.
On 6/21/2010 3:57 PM, Dan Poirier wrote:
On 2010-06-21 at 14:32, Stefan Fritsch s...@sfritsch.de wrote:
On Monday 21 June 2010, Dan Poirier wrote:
But is there any reason why we couldn't just make all actually
build all? And I would suggest if there's not a really good
reason, we should
On 2010-06-10 at 16:46, Stefan Fritsch s...@sfritsch.de wrote:
On Monday 07 June 2010, Rainer Jung wrote:
- build most module set by default.
Alternatives are:
- all
- few (same set as was default before the change)
- none
I would like to have an option for developers/testers
On Monday 07 June 2010, Rainer Jung wrote:
- build most module set by default.
Alternatives are:
- all
- few (same set as was default before the change)
- none
I would like to have an option for developers/testers that builds
every module that can be built with the currently
On 03.06.2010 13:30, Rainer Jung 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?
...
2) Which pre-cooked sets of modules to provide via configure?
Currently the default set (no configure
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
On 3 Jun 2010, at 12:30, Rainer Jung 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?
No. But we shouldn't change that within the 2.2.x line.
2) Which pre-cooked sets of modules to
On Thu, Jun 3, 2010 at 7:30 AM, Rainer Jung rainer.j...@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
On Thu, Jun 3, 2010 at 7:46 AM, Eric Covener cove...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Jun 3, 2010 at 7:30 AM, Rainer Jung rainer.j...@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?
On 03.06.2010 15:28, Jeff Trawick wrote:
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
On Jun 3, 2010, at 4:30 AM, Rainer Jung 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?
+1 for dynamic build by default when APR_HAS_DSO.
I don't buy the security argument: if you have
On 3 Jun 2010, at 14:59, Rainer Jung wrote:
Right, that's the next topic, which modules to load by default and with which
configuration.
Yes, this is another important question. But I think it's helpful to separate
them,
because the issue of which modules are loaded can be delegated
13 matches
Mail list logo
