From 868c10bd8a6be49e6024ed0e882f765e452e67a2 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Justin Erenkrantz Date: Fri, 1 Feb 2002 17:51:17 +0000 Subject: [PATCH] There are really two issues here: - Can we *ever* build a static binary? That *is* a showstopper, I agree. And, Aaron has volunteered to fix this soon-ish. - Separate from that, is the question whether we should we *always* build a static binary? That I do not believe I *is* a showstopper. So, let's make the distinction and call for a vote. git-svn-id: https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/httpd/httpd/trunk@93162 13f79535-47bb-0310-9956-ffa450edef68 --- STATUS | 9 ++++++++- 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/STATUS b/STATUS index 39167a36bd..be90560314 100644 --- a/STATUS +++ b/STATUS @@ -1,5 +1,5 @@ APACHE 2.0 STATUS: -*-text-*- -Last modified at [$Date: 2002/02/01 16:53:07 $] +Last modified at [$Date: 2002/02/01 17:51:17 $] Release: @@ -124,6 +124,13 @@ RELEASE SHOWSTOPPERS: RELEASE NON-SHOWSTOPPERS BUT WOULD BE REAL NICE TO WRAP THESE UP: + * Should we always build binaries statically unless otherwise + indicated? + Message-ID: <20020129210006.B23512@Lithium.MeepZor.Com> + + +1: + -1: Justin + * If the parent process dies, should the remaining child processes "gracefully" self-terminate. Message-ID: <3C58232C.FE91F19F@Golux.Com> -- 2.40.0