Andreas Henriksson wrote:
> Please note that the source tarball is tainted by both CVS directories
> and binaries, and thus likely needs to be repackaged for
> DFSG-cleanliness.
while i agree that having cvs meta data in a tarball is ugly and should
be avoided when doing the checkout to produce th
On Mon, Aug 04, 2008 at 09:33:22AM +0100, Kai Hendry wrote:
> Boa's code looks quite good. Boa being alike nostromo in being select
> driven as opposed to fork. Select driven is especially important for
> devices with low resources as forks are expensive.
[...]
I'm a bit familiar with boa, using i
First I somehow missed boa. :)
A friend asked me to package nostromo, so I just did it and announced
the ITP just in case someone was interested. I might not upload it to
Debian.
Anyway, boa has two problems after a quick look at the source. It's 7k
SLOC is twice that of nostromo. Also it has not
Hello Kai!
Regarding your intent to package nostromo...
I see your point in the gap between thttpd and lighttpd, but could you
please summarize why you would choose it over something like boa?
What are the main differences and why would you choose one over the
other? From a quick look at the descr
4 matches
Mail list logo
