httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Stipe Tolj <>
Subject Re: [PATCH] 1.3: htdocs/manual/cygwin.html and references to it
Date Thu, 28 Jun 2001 07:18:37 GMT
> > I have seen src/os/util_win32.c contains some code on that. I suppose it is possible
to use that
> > for Cygwin too?!?!
> Help 'yrself :-)

I'm doing :) -- but what about that nasty 8.3 filename aliasing thing within src/os/win32/util_win32.c
-- it isn't handled there in any way explitcitly?!

I tried to "lock" the creation using the registry option, but the (shorten) directory is still

> We actually waited on the Win32 port until we had a significant userland user base that
> was using the code before we made that leap.  Since the vast majority of folks working
> the Apache/Windows code base have focused on the Win32 layer, that port is, at this point,
> considerably better vetted today.

of course, the usage of Apache for Cygwin is still very limited, but the ammount of Cygwin
user is
very well performing and that's why I think we will have more demand on that side.

> Secondly, with the exception of folks with the Unix background, I believe your assertion
> cause some confusion amoung novice users, and I'd be -1 on 'recommending' Cygwin to that
> of users [find build tools... install build tools... etc, etc.]  But this is a seperate
> distinct argument, and I'll shut up and let some other people chime in their thoughts

Beta release quality would be enough in the first term, at least as long as the ammount of
users using
it is not that exhausting.

> Let me see if this language helps;
> "The Win32 port of Apache is built on its own, custom code within Apache to assure
> interoperability with the Windows operating systems.  While it is considered release
> quality, it is slower and less thoroughly tested than the Unix ports.  The Cygwin
> alternative uses the well tested unix code by using the Cygwin portability layer for
> Unix emulation.  The Cygwin port may suffer from gaps in security or reliability due
> to the interaction of the Cygwin compatibility layer to the native Windows API."
> "The Win32 port will be more familiar to most Windows users.  The Cygwin port will be
> familiar to Unix admins and developers, including the Apache/Unix build environment.
 Due to
> these two different code bases, the security and reliability of the two ports are unrelated
> to each other.  The Win32 port should be considered the more secure of the two at this
> The Win32 port is recommended for most Windows users, however the Cygwin port offers
> extra layer of compatibility for Unix developers."

+1 :)

See ya,
Wapme Systems AG

Münsterstr. 248
40470 Düsseldorf

Tel: +49-211-74845-0
Fax: +49-211-74845-299

------------------------------------------------------------------- - wherever you are

View raw message