apr-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Gregg Smith <...@gknw.net>
Subject Re: 1.6 apr/apr-util scope/timetable?
Date Sat, 03 Dec 2016 19:04:19 GMT
As for I, the only problematic VC IDE is 10 because it simply refuses to 
recognize /implib which is a baked in bug. Instead it names the import 
library the same as the project so all consumers trying to link to 
apr-1/libapr-1.lib cannot. The majority of squeaking over the years 
seems to be that VC version IIRC.

Renaming the apr/apu/api projects with -1 seems to fix that problem (and 
remove the link warnings about it) last time I had a VC10 on a machine. 
Quite frankly now is the time to do this for both 1.6 & 2.0. At such 
time as consumers require functions of these versions they can change 
their build to use them if, like httpd, they build it inline with their 

The biggest thing for me is that I like to turn features on that are off 
(like IPv6, crypto and db connectors). I've scripted it yet I realize 
it's easy to do with cmake with a mile long command. I do not like 
having to configure each piece and build separately however. Since 
during new releases of a certain consumer I have to do at least 6 builds 
(x86/64 over 3 different VC versions) this becomes more time consuming 
and more prone to error.

Steffen of Apache Lounge wants them, he has voiced this a number of 
times. I did some homework knowing this would come up again and Steffen 
is by huge proportion the largest provider of binaries for Windows. His 
builds are used for every link on the httpd projects download page 
[1][3] and then some with the exception of Apache Haus. I do not think 
it's too much of a problem to keep them, how much time does it take 
maintaining them with how little they ever change? [2]

So -1 to dropping legacy. Since mak/dep are made from dsw/dsp -1 to 
removing them as well.


[1] I know where speaking of apr here but I am looking downstream and I 
do not think that is an incorrect thing to do.
[2] I realize 2.0 may be in a bit of disrepair at the moment but there's 


On 03.12.2016 16:40, William A Rowe Jr wrote:
>> I'm wondering, where do we go on trunk with 2.0 on Windows,
>> now that we can emit solution/project files from CMake, or just
>> straightforward .mak files? It insisting on a local install of CMake
>> all that much of a hassle for the Windows build machine?

View raw message