Mailing-List: contact cvs-help@httpd.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@httpd.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (asf.osuosl.org: local policy)
Errors-To: <wrowe@rowe-clan.net>
Message-ID: <43904B21.1020407@rowe-clan.net>
Date: Fri, 02 Dec 2005 07:24:49 -0600
From: "William A. Rowe, Jr." <wrowe@rowe-clan.net>
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.7-1.1.fc3 (X11/20050929)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: dev@httpd.apache.org
CC: cvs@httpd.apache.org
Subject: Re: svn commit: r351702 - /httpd/httpd/branches/2.2.x/Makefile.win
References: <20051202123329.14452.qmail@minotaur.apache.org>
In-Reply-To: <20051202123329.14452.qmail@minotaur.apache.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

With this single change, there is now a source package available at;

   httpd.apache.org/dev/dist/httpd-2.2.0-win32-src.zip

However, without this single change it was impossible for nmake -f to run
to completion.

Is it unreasonable to publish this .zip if we deposit this patch under the
general /dist/httpd/patches/apply-to-2.2.0/ tree for those working from
a tarball?  If not, I'll scuttle (or leave in place for folks looking for
an unreleased candidate to examine), and we'll start all over at 2.2.1 with
the initial release.

If so great, we can proceed (2nd set of eyeballs on the .zip file please)
and determine the exact binary build, VC6 or 2005.  I've determined that
the intermediate Visual Studio 2000/2003 are simply not appropriate, and
if we ship 2005 we will need to distribute the c runtime installed locally.
(See http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;326922 for why
I'm again leaning twords VC6 till MS gets their act together w.r.t. clibs.
If they have determined we can't trust two supposedly identical runtimes
to be binary compatible, we can't trust that what the Perl builder, or
Python builder has used to assemble their tools.  If MS has surrendered
to their inability to have standardized and consistent clibs - even within
their specific compiler lifespan, we will probably can't move on this.)

There are some further changes necessary to building on win32 docs for 2.2
which I'll commit this weekend.  Are we doing anything in the 'bundled docs'
to indicate to the user that our site is much more likely to contain the
latest, up to date information?  It seems we should, in the distribution,
and in all the Announcements we publish for at least the first few months
of 2.2's existance.

Bill

> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewcvs/httpd/httpd/branches/2.2.x/Makefile.win?rev=351702&r1=351701&r2=351702&view=diff
> ==============================================================================
> --- httpd/httpd/branches/2.2.x/Makefile.win (original)
> +++ httpd/httpd/branches/2.2.x/Makefile.win Fri Dec  2 04:33:27 2005
> @@ -246,9 +246,9 @@
>  	 $(MAKE) $(MAKEOPT) -f mod_dumpio.mak      CFG="mod_dumpio - Win32 $(LONG)" RECURSE=0 $(CTARGET)
>  	cd ..\..
>  	cd modules\experimental
> -	 $(MAKE) $(MAKEOPT) -f mod_charset_lite.mak CFG="mod_charset_lite - Win32 $(LONG)" RECURSE=0 $(CTARGET)
>  	cd ..\..
>  	cd modules\filters
> +	 $(MAKE) $(MAKEOPT) -f mod_charset_lite.mak CFG="mod_charset_lite - Win32 $(LONG)" RECURSE=0 $(CTARGET)
>  !IF EXIST("srclib\zlib")
>  	 $(MAKE) $(MAKEOPT) -f mod_deflate.mak     CFG="mod_deflate - Win32 $(LONG)" RECURSE=0 $(CTARGET)
>  !ENDIF
> @@ -400,7 +400,7 @@
>  	copy modules\dav\main\$(LONG)\mod_dav.$(src_so)		"$(inst_so)" <.y
>  	copy modules\debug\$(LONG)\mod_bucketeer.$(src_so)	"$(inst_so)" <.y
>  	copy modules\debug\$(LONG)\mod_dumpio.$(src_so)		"$(inst_so)" <.y
> -	copy modules\experimental\$(LONG)\mod_charset_lite.$(src_so)	"$(inst_so)" <.y
> +	copy modules\filters\$(LONG)\mod_charset_lite.$(src_so)	"$(inst_so)" <.y
>  !IF EXIST("srclib\zlib")
>  	copy modules\filters\$(LONG)\mod_deflate.$(src_so) 	"$(inst_so)" <.y
>  !IF EXIST("srclib\zlib\zlib1.$(src_dll)")