Kristian Kielhofner wrote: > 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? >
That actually depends on how many modules we were to include. The actually lighttpd binary is only 100K larger. I'm updating the package quickly (almost done). I'll be committing the update shortly. Darrick -- Darrick Hartman DJH Solutions, LLC http://www.djhsolutions.com ------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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]
