Mailing List Archive

> I was wondering why we're releasing the binaries with the source?
> If someone can compile then they don't need the binary, and if
> they have the binary they don't need the source. I think we should
> just create a bunch of binaries and name then the gnu way.
>
> apache-1.0.0-export-i486-unknown.tar.gz
>
> or whatever it is supposed to look like.
>
> <Aram>

I disagree. This is *not* a 2MB package. Removal of the .c files
would reduce the size very little. Much of the rest of the package
needs to be included.

Hmmmm... last I looked, the only 1.0.0 sources still on hyperreal was
my most recent build, with the change-log correction and SCO 5 config
patch. Before we spend too much more time hashing over which version
to use, does anyone have a problem with that build? If not, it would
seem best to just settle on it...

rst

At 08:52 AM 11/27/95 -0500, you wrote:
>Another '+1' vote on releasing 1.0.0...
>
>It's (well, whatever 1.0.0x version I last snagged) been running on various
>A/UX servers here with nary a hiccup or cough.
>
>How about if we all agree on _which_ source is the "official" 1.0.0
>source, freeze it and then run it/compile it/upload binaries. It wouldn't
>look too good if the binaries differed from the official release even
>slightly.

+1 As well to releasing 1.0.

I was wondering why we're releasing the binaries with the source?
If someone can compile then they don't need the binary, and if
they have the binary they don't need the source. I think we should
just create a bunch of binaries and name then the gnu way.

apache-1.0.0-export-i486-unknown.tar.gz

or whatever it is supposed to look like.

<Aram>
--
Aram W. Mirzadeh, MIS Manager, Qosina Corporation
http://www.qosina.com/~awm/, awm@qosina.com
Apache httpd server team http://www.apache.org

> apache_one_x works fine for me, and compiled clean on my three
> architectures.
>
> +1 apache_one_x

works for me too.

+1

> Does anyone have comment on what to include in the binary
> releases?

+1 on me not having to build new binaries


rob

> Hmmmm... last I looked, the only 1.0.0 sources still on hyperreal was
> my most recent build, with the change-log correction and SCO 5 config
> patch. Before we spend too much more time hashing over which version
> to use, does anyone have a problem with that build? If not, it would
> seem best to just settle on it...

On solaris 1.0.0.x compiled out of the box, (with gcc
that is :-( ) and has worked fine ever since

Dw.

--
New toy: http://ewse.ceo.org - - - - Dirk.vanGulik@jrc.it

> Hmmmm... last I looked, the only 1.0.0 sources still on hyperreal was
> my most recent build, with the change-log correction and SCO 5 config
> patch. Before we spend too much more time hashing over which version
> to use, does anyone have a problem with that build? If not, it would
> seem best to just settle on it...

No problems with this build.

> rst

> +1 on me not having to build new binaries
>
>
> rob

Ditto that.