I'm going to try the "most" and see what breaks tonight. The building of
the shared modules isn't a problem now, but the specific modules may have
issues. Hopefully it'll be no problem, but I'm +1 for shared modules in
binaries.
david
----- Original Message -----
From: "Greg Ames" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, April 24, 2001 4:12 AM
Subject: Re: List of modules in "most" build
> Brian Havard wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, 19 Apr 2001 13:41:10 -0400, Greg Ames wrote:
> >
> > >Brian Havard wrote:
> > >>
> > >> I've been building with --enable-mods-shared=most and noticed that it
> > >> doesn't really build most modules. I think the following modules
should
> > >> also be included in the "most" list.
> > >>
> > >
> > >> mime_magic
> > >
> > >I've had a few nasty headaches caused by mod_mime_magic, and would
> > >rather it stayed off of the "most" list.
>
> > >
> > >I think it would be better if the admin had to explicitly include
> > >mod_mime_magic.
> >
> > Well, I'm more thinking of building dynamic modules for binary
> > distributions. Building a module doesn't necessarily imply enabling it,
> > only providing the possibility of enabling it. Would many people enable
> > "most" for a static build?
> >
>
> hmmmm...it doesn't bother me at all to have m_m_m in a shared build.
> The default httpd.conf doesn't have a LoadModule for m_m_m (or anything
> for that matter...).
>
> Back when I first met m_m_m, we couldn't build dso's on OS/390, so it
> was a static build that got me (created with ./binbuild.sh, which used
> "most"). Victor has got AIX dso's working now with the new improved
> libtool. David sounds like he has something going for dso's on BeOS.
> So are there any platforms out there that we know about that need to
> build static? If not, then my objection is obsolete and withdrawn.
>
> Greg
