You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@httpd.apache.org by Lars Eilebrecht <La...@unix-ag.org> on 1998/06/10 18:42:34 UTC
RE: cvs commit: apache-1.3 STATUS
According to rse@hyperreal.org:
> Open issues:
>
> + * How should an Apache binary release tarball look?
> +
> + 1. The "old" way where it is just a source release tarball
> + plus a pre-compiled src/httpd-<gnutriple>. It is created
> + via the apache-devsite/binbuild.sh script which
> + - creates the build tree
> + - creates the src/Configuration file with standard modules
> + - runs "make"
> + - renames src/httpd to src/httpd-<gnutriple>
> + - runs "make clean"
> + - packs the build tree stuff together
> + Already known discussion points:
> + - should src/httpd be renamed or now because a lot
> + of PRs say they cannot find the httpd :-(
> + Pros: <gets filled tomorrow>
> + Cons: <gets filled tomorrow>
> + Status: Ralf -0
> +
> + 2. The way other projects release binary tarballs, i.e.
> + a package containing the installed (binary) files.
> + It can be created by a script which
> + - creates the build tree
> + - runs "./configure --prefix=/usr/local/apache \
^^^
> + --enable-shared=remain \
> + --disable-module=auth_db \
> + --enable-suexec ..."
> + - runs "make install root=apache-root"
> + - packs the stuff together from ./apache-root only!!
> + Already known discussion points:
> + - should there be a prefix usr/local/apache in
^^^
Are you talking about "usr/local/apache" or "/usr/local/apache"?
> + the tarball or not because some people think
> + its useful while others dislike it a lot.
> + Pros: <gets filled tomorrow>
> + Cons: <gets filled tomorrow>
> + Status: Ralf +1, Martin +1
> +
Maybe it would be a good idea to move the httpd binary out of the src directory
into a bin or sbin directory. Some people are to stupid to guess that there
is a binary in the src directory.
ciao...
--
Lars Eilebrecht - There's always one more bug.
sfx@unix-ag.org
http://www.home.unix-ag.org/sfx/