Darrick Hartman (lists) wrote: > Darrick Hartman (lists) wrote: > >>> 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. >> > > The lighttpd binary is 144k > The modules (if we include all of the modules) add about 600k. We > probably don't need all of the modules. > > Long term, if we want to add provisioning support etc, we'll want to go > this way as it offers alot more options than mini_httpd. >
For the backend, we'll need more than micro-perl (or nano-perl or whatever it is). -Philip ------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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]
