httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "William A. Rowe, Jr." <>
Subject RE: Fw: cvs commit: httpd-2.0
Date Wed, 13 Dec 2000 16:43:50 GMT
> From: []
> Sent: Wednesday, December 13, 2000 10:26 AM
> > I am teetering on a veto on requiring perl to do Win32 builds.
> I should mention that sooner or later we are going to require Perl to do a
> Win32 build regardless.  :-)  Basically, we require Perl to generate the
> .exports files for apr and apr-util.  Those .exports files should then be
> used to generate the .def files for Windows.  As for whether that support
> is required or not, I believe it is.  We have a habit of not keeping the
> .def and .exp files up to date.  Allowing Perl to generate the answers for
> us solves that problem.

Absolutely.  However, our 'own' munger could also accomplish this.  It might
even be a simpler task.  Ok.  It isn't.  Perl is a text processing language.
C isn't (except when we get done with it :-)

Any which way we need a munger, for .conf files, .exp/.def files, and if I
do things the 'right way', we even build our .dsp+.mak files from the Unix
codebase.  I'm not promising to finish that this week though :=}

> > Now my question is: Do we REALLY need this function?
> IMHO, yes we should have this function.  [snip...]
> Requiring some extra programs to build Apache on
> Windows shouldn't cause any more problems than it does on Unix.

+1, within reason, of course.

> Finally, this isn't required for installing, just building from source, so
> this isn't a huge issue IMHO.

Correction, it isn't required for building.  It's only required if they
do a full build + install in Win32.

View raw message