httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "William A. Rowe, Jr." <wr...@lnd.com>
Subject RE: Massive changes to Win32 generated MAK files
Date Fri, 07 Apr 2000 14:04:58 GMT
> From: TOKILEY@aol.com [mailto:TOKILEY@aol.com]
> Sent: Friday, April 07, 2000 1:38 AM
> 
> Given the size and the complexity of your codebase 
> I think you can pretty much assume the following of any Win32
> programmer that will be seriously trying to compile Apache...
> 
> 2. Even if a developer WANTS to compile with Borland they will 
> NOT be trying to do so with the 'free' version and they will already 
> have the BC IDE and the VPTOBPR.EXE utility to perform the 
> necessary project file conversion(s).

I believe we are thinking in terms of admins.  Yes, I would now
state that every 'serious' Win32 developer works within an IDE.
But I'm not really sure that's our audience for the Borland
compiler.  You are right when you mention Borland 'fell behind'
in usefullness (I havn't used their products since '91, and their
bundled resource editor back in '93, which was at one time vastly
surperior to MS's.)  

The idea is who's product.  I believe a mak technology (not being
specific here :~) is really more useful to throw switches that
might interest the admin.  Batch files don't do that impressive
a job of compiling.

BTW - my point is that MAKE -is- included in their free product.
The Q remains, how do we want to take advantage of that.  If we
are that scared of the VPTOBPR results (and won't adapt our dsp's
to be sufficiently generic), then the MAK result is decided.

But... we may have an option.  If we postpone MAK files until the
release of 2.0, and only roll them with the full release, we will
keep admins happy who want to build.  You are right, alpha developers
can work from the dsp files as well as anything.

Bill



Mime
View raw message