Hi Aleks, On Mon, May 06, 2019 at 08:17:23AM +0200, Aleksandar Lazic wrote: > > The outputs below raises some questions to me. > > > > * Should in the OPTIONS output also be the EXTRA_OBJS ?
That's a good question. I was hesitating but given that the goal is to be able to easily rebuild a similar executable, maybe we should add it indeed. > > * Should PCRE2 be used instead of PCRE ? No opinion :-) > > * Should PRIVATE_CACHE be used in the default build? No, because this one disables inter-process sharing of SSL sessions. > > * Should SLZ be used in the default build? It's just a matter of choice. I personally always build with it for prod servers because it saves a huge amount of memory and some CPU, but it also adds one extra dependency. I'd say that if it doesn't require extra efforts it's worth it. If it adds some packaging burden you can simply drop it and fall back to zlib. > > * Make NS sense in a container image? I don't think so indeed, though it doesn't cost much to keep it, at least so that you use the same build options everywhere. > > * Can DEVICEATLAS 51DEGREES WURFL be used together? > > - From technically point of view >From a technical point of view I don't see any obvious incompatibility. However doing automated builds from all 3 of these might not always be trivial as it will require that you can include these respective libraries, some of which may only be downloaded after registering on their site. Please don't ship an executable built with the dummy libs since it will be useless and misleading (it's only useful for full- featured builds). > > - From license point of view You have to carefully check. I believe at least one of them mentions patents so this can even make the resulting executable look dangerous for some users and make them stay away from your images. Anyway as usual with anything related to licensing, the best advice I could give you is to ask a lawyer :-/ This alone might be a valid reason for not wasting too much time down this road. Cheers, Willy
