From: "Rodent of Unusual Size" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, December 06, 2001 1:04 PM
> Changing the contents of packages that have Apache's name > of them should be a group decision, IMHO. My sampling shows that you are correct, sir. There's src's in them thar tarballs! Which package or packages I looked at [at one time] that did not, I dunno. > That said, the /dist/httpd/ tree contains over 500MB. > About 65% of that is in binaries/, and most files in > there contain the source and a small delta (the binary > proper). It seems reasonable to suspect that we could > ditch at least 200MB if we had one source package for > each version (well, two if you count Windows), and the > platform binary packages contained only the binary > and build-against files (.h, .so, .a, et cetera), but > not the complete server source. I agree with you here ... it would eliminate a huge amount of duplication. But that's an issue for 2.0, I suspect. > How accomplishing the (not yet set) goal of reducing > disk/network consumption balances against our historical > policy of 'all the source, all the time' is something > that perhaps is worthy of discussion. Well all that said, I'll have a -src.msi package back online in a day or so, now that I've noted that unix included it. I also note that most platforms provide the complete -src tree. I think this is appropriate, you can't provide a real patch unless you've grepped the entire tree and determined that a given symbol isn't going to clobber another platform's way of doing things. Not every package has done so, but if they go and ask for the -src package then dandy, we should give them every source. The .msi and .exe before it only bundled win32 source files. This is a change to the -src.msi package. Bill
