httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Ben Laurie <...@gonzo.ben.algroup.co.uk>
Subject Re: NT Errors revisited
Date Sat, 28 Jun 1997 20:53:09 GMT
Alexei Kosut wrote:
> 
> On Fri, 27 Jun 1997, Ben Laurie wrote:
> 
> > > I'm curious, though - does the current 1.3-dev work for you? I've seen no
> > > indication that anyone has it working, but none that it fails to work for
> > > anyone else but me.
> > 
> > I only got the current 1.3-dev on NT about five minutes ago - giz a chance,
> > guv!
> 
> Well, how long does it take to compile and run the thing? Actually, it can
> take quite a while, if your NT machine crashes as often as mine does. I
> don't think the OS I have installed like the Visual C++ I have installed.
> But that's what I've come to expect from Microsoft products.

Mine is actually pretty stable. Anyway, I have compiled it, and after some
weirdness (cured by a reboot, doncha just hate that?), I'm well on the way to
fixing the bugs. The first (second?) is caused by the slack stuff, it seems,
I haven't investigated why, merely disabled it, and the second is caused by
some changes that appear to have been introduced into http_main.c at v1.157
by Dean. I dunno what they are supposed to do, or why, but they seem wrong. I
am trying to fathom them at the moment.

> 
> Actually, it does bring up an issue. The Windows makefiles that come with
> 1.3-dev are wrong. They appear to be for earlier versions of the software.
> They refer to files that don't exist, don't include some files that do,
> etc... Is this something we should fix? I'd hope so. I would, but I'm
> using MSVC++ 5.0, and I believe the code was developed with 4.2. If I put
> 5.0 makefiles into Apache, I don't think it'd work with earlier versions.

I think, actually, that 5.0 makefiles work with 4.2. However, I'd be happier if
4.2 made the makefiles...

> 
> What I guess I'm asking is, what restrictions do we want to put on who can
> compile this thing on NT? While I think that for Unix, it's well and good
> to make sure that Apache compiles on every and all OS and compiler
> possible, I don't think PCs need neccessarily have that same concern,
> since most users won't even have the ability to compile Apache, and the
> OSes do not come with development tools at all (unlike Unices). The
> current NT port requires Microsoft Visual C++. I have no problem with
> this; my understanding is that this is the compiler used by the majority
> of Windows developers. I don't know what version it requires, but I also
> have no problem requiring the latest version (5.0?). Do we want to do
> that?

I think that the latest is OK, once it has been out long enough. People often
stick with the previous version for a while because of existing projects.

> 
> At any rate, the NT version does need this sort of fixing, as well as docs
> on how to install the thing.
> 
> Well, it'd also be nice if it served web pages, but that's a seperate
> issue.

Nearly there!

Cheers,

Ben.

-- 
Ben Laurie                Phone: +44 (181) 994 6435  Email: ben@algroup.co.uk
Freelance Consultant and  Fax:   +44 (181) 994 6472
Technical Director        URL: http://www.algroup.co.uk/Apache-SSL
A.L. Digital Ltd,         Apache Group member (http://www.apache.org)
London, England.          Apache-SSL author

Mime
View raw message