apr-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Mo DeJong <mdej...@cygnus.com>
Subject RE: [wrowe@rowe-clan.net: RE: *.exports in distro bundle, use of , Perl on Windows (was: Re: make_export.awk)]
Date Sun, 17 Dec 2000 00:28:27 GMT
On Sat, 16 Dec 2000, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:

> > I guess I don't follow the logic there. How exactly would Windows
> > developers run the configure script if they did not have Cygwin
> > installed? Last I checked, perl did not read sh files, so you
> > would need to have a version of /bin/sh on the Windows box
> > to be able to run configure. I was not aware that there was
> > a pure Win32 version of /bin/sh, I had always assumed people
> > would be using Cygwin to run the ./configure script. Since
> > Cygwin does not come with perl and it does come with gnu
> > utils like sed and awk, we should use the utils and not
> > perl. Does that sound reasonable to everyone?
> Nak, no, you cannot incorporate cygwin on win32 for apr/apache, 
> and, no, Win32 doesn't run ./configure, and no, we don't expect 
> anyone on win32 to handle installation of anything beyond the 
> easy-to-install activestate perl, or we incoroporate the Lucient 
> licensed awk.  Apr itself is not built on cygwin porting.

I am not talking about building APR on top of Cygwin, I am
only talking about building APR with the utils (like /bin/sh)
provided by Cygwin. I assumed that this was how you all got
./configure running under Windows, but it sounds like
nobody has done that, so my mistake. Does this mean that
the Windows version of APR only builds with VC++?

> This is a copy of CYGWIN_LICENSE from the cygwin sources...
> This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify 
> it under the terms of the GNU General Public License (GPL) as 
> published by the Free Software Foundation; either version 2 of the 
> License, or (at your option) any later version. 
> and that, for an Apache project, is the kiss of death.

Gosh, you are right. We have better halt that port to Linux
too, since it is also GPLed. If you link your program to
cygwin1.dll, then it needs to be GPLed. But, there is an
exception in the license for projects that fit the OSD
definition of "open source" software. None of that matters
since you do not need to link to cygwin1.dll if you are
just using the tools to build your code. If you had actually
read the license, you might already know that (no, I
am not trying to flame here).

Mo DeJong
Red Hat Inc

View raw message