This is the mail archive of the cygwin-apps mailing list for the Cygwin project.
Index Nav: | [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index] | |
---|---|---|
Message Nav: | [Date Prev] [Date Next] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] |
Other format: | [Raw text] |
Max Bowsher schrieb:
To my mind, a DLL is strongly preferable, because all packages using the library pick up any fixes automatically, instead of requiring a recompilation themselves.
fcgi does not build out of the box as shared library on any target. Almost no other distro has or uses the shared library.
So why should we?
In my reasoning which is unfortunately not english enough I also explained my private POV which makes sense at least to me.
E.g. mandrake, suse and PLD have their mod_fastcgi.so without libfcgi
dependency, linked statically. debian's libapache2-mod-fastcgi_2.4.2
also. mandrake's php-fgci also, all clisp's also.
haven't looked further.
http://rpmseek.com/rpm/php-fcgi-5.1.2-1mdk.i586.html?hl=de&cs=fcgi:PN:0:0:1:0:2604182
Sorry, but the above is entirely wrong. mod_fastcgi does not use libfcgi at all.
Sorry, but the above is entirely wrong. mod_fastcgi does use libfcgi as silent build requirement, and is not listed in the reqs because it is linked statically. Which is my point. Same for most other packages.
Say a standalone /usr/lib/apache2/mod_fastcgi.so for apache2-mod_fastcgi
or /usr/lib/apache/mod_fastcgi.dll for apache-mod_fastcgi, without
libfcgi0 require, talking to a fcgi enabled ruby, clisp or php.
clisp being the only cygwin package so far which actually has it enabled.
What are you trying to say? The above paragraph isn't meaningful English.
Sorry. My native lingua is german.
The other reason is this: I don't only develop on cygwin, I also run business services like clisp or xapian and swish cgi's with cygwin1.dll, but I wouldn't bother to use the cygwin apache. For testing and development it's great, similar to postgresql. So I don't want to mix a native apache-mod_fastcgi with a cygwin fcgi using a shared libfcgi0. Makes no sense.
The above paragraph makes no sense, too.
I usually run fcgi's and cgi's on win32-native apache2 and lighttpd.How is this relevant to the Cygwin package layout?
For that user scenario where native apache and/or cygwin lighttpd has to deal with a cygwin fcgi. fcgi upgrades and breakage are dependend on developers decisions only if linked statically.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Index Nav: | [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index] | |
---|---|---|
Message Nav: | [Date Prev] [Date Next] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] |