httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Alexei Kosut <ako...@leland.Stanford.EDU>
Subject Re: 2.0: process model design
Date Sun, 23 Nov 1997 03:12:03 GMT
On Sun, 23 Nov 1997, Brian Havard wrote:

> On Sat, 22 Nov 1997 18:41:56 -0800 (PST), Dean Gaudet wrote:
> 
> >Portability wouldn't be nicer.  We currently have platforms that don't use
> >gcc.  We also have to deal with g++ versus microsoft c++ versus cfront
> >issues.
> 
> Why not ditch MSC and use gcc for the Win32 port? I would think it would have
> been much easier in the first place, more like the OS/2 port. See
> http://www.cygnus.com/misc/gnu-win32/ if you don't know about it.

gcc in particular, I dunno about. We use MSVC++ because that's how the
original Windows port was done, and it works, and it's Microsoft's
standard C compiler.

We had at one point discussed using the Cygwin libraries to port Apache to
Win32, and I understand that someone at one point did get Apache
1.2.something to compile, with only minor changes, that way. This would
have been similar to using EMX under OS/2. However, there is one major
problem with this, that we discovered. I quote from the Cygwin32 FAQ
(http://www.cygnus.com/misc/gnu-win32/faq.html):

 "The Cygwin32 API library found in the winsup subdirectory of the source
  code is now also covered by the GNU GPL. Since by
  default all executables link against this library, programs compiled by
  the beta 17 tools will also have to be free software distributed
  under the GPL with source code available to all."

Apache is not GPLed, nor does it want to be. And we want to be able to
distribute binaries. And we want other companies to be able to distribute
binaries, without giving away proprietary source code. So that makes using
cygwin basicaly impossible.

-- Alexei Kosut <akosut@stanford.edu> <http://www.stanford.edu/~akosut/>
   Stanford University, Class of 2001 * Apache <http://www.apache.org> *



Mime
View raw message