On 3/27/08, Darrick Hartman (lists) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Kristian Kielhofner wrote: > > On 3/27/08, Darrick Hartman (lists) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> I bet lighttpd would handle this more gracefully than mini_httpd does, > >> but not sure that it's worth the extra weight in the image. > > > > Possibly, but yes it would have to be separate because it doesn't > > support SSL. That's the nice thing about mini_httpd - it does :). > > > What do you mean? It sure support SSL. It just needs to be compiled as > such. (adding --with-openssl --with-openssl-libs=/location) >
Yeah... I realized shortly after I send that I was thinking of tighthttpd (or whatever that other ACME server was). Maybe we should be looking at lighttpd. How much bigger are the binaries? -- Kristian Kielhofner ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Check out the new SourceForge.net Marketplace. It's the best place to buy or sell services for just about anything Open Source. http://ad.doubleclick.net/clk;164216239;13503038;w?http://sf.net/marketplace _______________________________________________ Astlinux-users mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/astlinux-users Donations to support AstLinux are graciously accepted via PayPal to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
