Posted-Date: Tue, 17 Aug 1999 17:17:46 GMT
Date: Tue, 17 Aug 1999 19:17:46 +0200 (CEST)
From: Dirk-Willem van Gulik <dirkx@webweaving.org>
To: new-httpd@apache.org
Subject: Re: Win 95 and 98. "more portable"
In-Reply-To: 
 <Pine.LNX.4.04.9908171254560.22763-100000@chosondo.raleigh.ibm.com>
Message-ID: 
 <Pine.BSF.4.05.9908171916350.28220-100000@kim.ispra.webweaving.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: new-httpd-owner@apache.org
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: new-httpd@apache.org


On Tue, 17 Aug 1999, Ryan Bloom wrote:

 
> The build process actually, doesn't change.  ALL Windows version checks
> are run time, not compile time.  The only real change that I am
> suggesting, is a docs change.  De-couple the level of support for NT and
> 95/98.  NT will be of production quality with the 2.0 tree.  95/98 will
> remain in perpetual BETA, until MS decides to provide support for the
> functions required to get them out of BETA.

But surely, the moment we add, say, named pipes or proper timeout handling
to CGI, we have different (binary) versions for NT and W9x. Otherwise 
the W9x version calles non-existing functions.

Hence two or three different builds to make them ?

DW