William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote: >What say we? Does this sound like something worth researching? Allen, >Brane and fellow Win32 hackers, should I proceed to figure out how to >structure such a binaries and symbols resource after I finish the >apr 0.9.2 and httpd 2.0.45 releases? Of course I will set aside those files, >.zip the .pdb's for posterity, roll the .dbg files into the installer >(optional >feature, of course.) We might also trash the /map extraction from our >link steps, seeing as .dbg and .pdb files contain everything we could ever >wish to have. > > I think having the .dbg symbols should be quite enough for a normal httpd installation, so I think fixing the timestamp problem isn't that important for 0.9.2/2.0.45. If we can really do without the map files once the .dbg's are available, then I see nothing wrong with killing them.
-- Brane Äibej <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://www.xbc.nu/brane/
