Hi KP
Am 10.01.2016 um 12:12 schrieb Erich Titl:
> Hi KP
>
> Am 10.01.2016 um 11:45 schrieb kp kirchdoerfer:
>> About 100kb more than mini_httpd, depends also on included modules.
>
> Right now we don't have that many requirements, possibly only ssl
I have recompiled lighttpd for ssl support.
Hi KP
Am 10.01.2016 um 11:45 schrieb kp kirchdoerfer:
> About 100kb more than mini_httpd, depends also on included modules.
Right now we don't have that many requirements, possibly only ssl
cheers
ET
--
Site24x7 APM
Hi KP
Am 10.01.2016 um 08:40 schrieb kp kirchdoerfer:
> Am Samstag, 9. Januar 2016, 00:26:57 schrieb Erich Titl:
>> Hi KP
>>
>> ...
>> * update lighttpd to 1.4.39
>>
>> Is there a benefit in using lighthttpd over mini_httpd? If so, should we
>> drop mini_httpd?
>
> While it's still small it's
Hi Erich;
Am Sonntag, 10. Januar 2016, 11:18:09 schrieb Erich Titl:
> Hi KP
>
> Am 10.01.2016 um 08:40 schrieb kp kirchdoerfer:
> > Am Samstag, 9. Januar 2016, 00:26:57 schrieb Erich Titl:
> >> Hi KP
> >>
> >> ...
> >> * update lighttpd to 1.4.39
> >>
> >> Is there a benefit in using
Hi KP
Am 10.01.2016 um 11:45 schrieb kp kirchdoerfer:
> Hi Erich;
>
..
>>
>> Details? If it supports some kind of CGI is should just work.
>
> I believe we need to adjust install pathes and look into the configuration as
> well. Though I haven't looked into it seriously.
I gave it a try
Am Samstag, 9. Januar 2016, 00:26:57 schrieb Erich Titl:
> Hi KP
>
> ...
> * update lighttpd to 1.4.39
>
> Is there a benefit in using lighthttpd over mini_httpd? If so, should we
> drop mini_httpd?
While it's still small it's more like a full-fledged webserver and more
configuration options.
Hi KP
...
* update lighttpd to 1.4.39
Is there a benefit in using lighthttpd over mini_httpd? If so, should we
drop mini_httpd?
cheers
ET
--
Site24x7 APM Insight: Get Deep Visibility into Application Performance
APM +
