Mailing List Archive: 1.0 Binaries

1.0 Binaries

Nov 24, 1995, 7:36 PM

Post #1 of 4 (221 views)

I have uploaded 1.0 binary sets for:

bsdi_1.1, netbsd_1.1, and sunos_4.1.3 to the appropriate spots.

Here is the deal....

They are compile with *all* modules installed with exception of
the dynamic loader. I have been suggesting this all along and
unfortunately did not look close enough at Brian's "How-To" page
this past week. What is the reason to not supply a binary with
DBM, and Imagemap capability?

It also sounds as if we may still want to juggle the source layout
for manuals from David's suggestion? (Great looking manual David!)

Anyway, I'm travel weary and will pick up on this tomorrow...

-Randy

Re: 1.0 Binaries [ In reply to ]

hartill at ooo

Nov 24, 1995, 8:10 PM

Post #2 of 4 (225 views)

Permalink

> Here is the deal....
>
> They are compile with *all* modules installed with exception of
> the dynamic loader.

I don't know which is the correct/best idea, but we must all follow
the same rules.

The binaries are already visible for the curious and it has been
known for the curious to publicise the URLs for the "under development"
section of the apache site.

We're running the danger here of having inconsistent versions of
binaries reaching the public.

My personal opinion.. errr, hmmm, give 'em the basics. If they want
more toys, they ought to be able to compile the damn thing themselves...

rob

Re: 1.0 Binaries [ In reply to ]

andrew at aaaaaaaa

Nov 25, 1995, 6:48 AM

Post #3 of 4 (225 views)

Permalink

Mmm, anyone know which is the minimum set of modules needed to support a site that wants to swap from NCSA 1.3 to Apache 1.0.0 just by swapping binaries? Those modules at least should be in the release binary.

Ay.

Re: 1.0 Binaries [ In reply to ]

randy at zyzzyva

Nov 25, 1995, 8:29 AM

Post #4 of 4 (221 views)

Permalink

>
> > Here is the deal....
> >
> > They are compile with *all* modules installed with exception of
> > the dynamic loader.
>
> I don't know which is the correct/best idea, but we must all follow
> the same rules.
>
> The binaries are already visible for the curious and it has been
> known for the curious to publicise the URLs for the "under development"
> section of the apache site.
>
> We're running the danger here of having inconsistent versions of
> binaries reaching the public.
>
> My personal opinion.. errr, hmmm, give 'em the basics. If they want
> more toys, they ought to be able to compile the damn thing themselves...

IMO, the whole point of supplying binaries was to minimize the number
of "why doesn't this work" questions. If we supply binaries that are
not fully functional, we have defeated our purpose.

Brian was the only person on the list who responded to my original
post about "what goes in the binaries". The only thing that I recall
being an issue was my suggestion to supply the .o files as well.
Obviously, I'll conform to whatever the group decides, but at this
point in time, I don't see a good argument for supplying binary
versions that aren't fully equipped.

-Randy

As for the issue of inconsistency in what's out there...if people
are grabbing these prior to release, they run the risk of getting
pre-release software....