httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Ryan Bloom <...@raleigh.ibm.com>
Subject Re: 1.3.10
Date Wed, 15 Dec 1999 22:29:31 GMT

> > > > Yes, but if Win32 is hosed, then we should release 1.3.10 *now*, and
> > > > 1.3.11 later.
> > > 
> > > Win32 has been hosed since the day we released 1.3.9, and we knew it that
> > > day.
> 
> There seems to be some implicit knowledge here that I'm missing having
> only been on the list for about a month...
> 
> In what respects is apache 1.3.9 "hosed" with regards to Win32?  Should I
> not use 1.3.9 at all on Win32 (and if so, what version or what other
> httpd do you recommend) or is this something strictly related to IPv6
> that shouldn't bother me?
> 
> [I do realize that the win32 code is effectively beta quality due to
> the relatively low number of people using the silly platform].

Hosed is probably too strong a word.  Apache on NT is actually pretty
stable, even version 1.3.9.  Apache on 95/98 is really unstable, and a lot
of the work that was done for Apache 1.3.9 just made those platforms more
unstable.

The problems can all be found in the Bug Database.  Most people have
refrained from updating their Windows systems to 1.3.9, because 1.3.6 just
works better.  Some of the bigger issues with 1.3.9 on windows are:

It doesn't install as a service
cgi scripts tend to hang more often.
passwords that used to work as plain text don't authenticate anymore.


The list goes on a bit more.  Most of these were related to chagnes made
to help us get graceful restart working better on Windows, AFAIK.  

Hope that explains it a bit better.

Ryan

_______________________________________________________________________
Ryan Bloom		rbb@raleigh.ibm.com
4205 S Miami Blvd	
RTP, NC 27709		It's a beautiful sight to see good dancers 
			doing simple steps.  It's a painful sight to
			see beginners doing complicated patterns.	



Mime
View raw message