Re: Building binaries for 1.2

[Randy Terbush <ra...@zyzzyva.com>]

http://dev.apache.org/binaries


> I think a standard way of doing it is really a good thing...
> 
> Like it or not, people view the binaries as very important because they
> can't type two lines.  A standard config should be made.  All it takes is
> a couple of rules plus a standard Configuration file.
> 
> On Wed, 4 Jun 1997, Jim Jagielski wrote:
> 
> > Rodent of Unusual Size wrote:
> > > 
> > >     I seem to recall someone asking to-day just *how* to build canned
> > >     binaries for the various platforms, but I don't recall a
> > >     corresponding answer.  I only have the bundled cc at this point, no
> > >     gcc - we don't need to build one from each, do we?
> > > 
> > 
> > I think that each pre-compiled build is a "nice thing" to provide
> > but we don't need to get into heavy detail about it. You could,
> > after all, do one with all modules, but the people who would most
> > likely use a pre-build binary wouldn't want, need or know how to
> > utilize all of them.
> > 
> > With that in mind, just build as you see fit with a detailed README
> > about how it was built and what was included. Adding the 'info'
> > and 'status' module is a good idea
> > -- 
> > ====================================================================
> >       Jim Jagielski            |       jaguNET Access Services
> >      jim@jaguNET.com           |       http://www.jaguNET.com/
> >             "Look at me! I'm wearing a cardboard belt!"
> >