Return-Path: Delivered-To: new-httpd-archive@hyperreal.org Received: (qmail 28067 invoked by uid 6000); 22 Mar 1999 01:04:38 -0000 Received: (qmail 28051 invoked from network); 22 Mar 1999 01:04:33 -0000 Received: from devsys.jagunet.com (206.156.208.6) by taz.hyperreal.org with SMTP; 22 Mar 1999 01:04:33 -0000 Received: (from jim@localhost) by devsys.jaguNET.com (8.9.3/jag-2.6) id UAA12206 for new-httpd@apache.org; Sun, 21 Mar 1999 20:04:29 -0500 (EST) From: Jim Jagielski Message-Id: <199903220104.UAA12206@devsys.jaguNET.com> Subject: Re: win32 compile To: new-httpd@apache.org Date: Sun, 21 Mar 1999 20:04:28 -0500 (EST) In-Reply-To: <9903211553.aa19650@paris.ics.uci.edu> from "Roy T. Fielding" at Mar 21, 99 03:53:15 pm X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL25] Content-Type: text Sender: new-httpd-owner@apache.org Precedence: bulk Reply-To: new-httpd@apache.org Roy T. Fielding wrote: > > Releasing a tarball that doesn't compile on Win32 would be dumb. > Since it hasn't been released yet, just delete the tarball, retag > the changed file as APACHE_1_3_5, and redo the tarball. We don't need > to worry about any early leaks of the tarball, since the problem only > effects Win32 and they have no choice but to get a new one. > Since this change does not affect UNIX users, then should we even bother remaking any binary dists? After all, if a UNIX person has already snuck one, then it makes no diff to them... Comments? -- =========================================================================== Jim Jagielski ||| jim@jaguNET.com ||| http://www.jaguNET.com/ "That's no ordinary rabbit... that's the most foul, cruel and bad-tempered rodent you ever laid eyes on"