httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
Subject Re: 2.0.23 tarballs up
Date Fri, 10 Aug 2001 17:41:23 GMT

In a message dated 01-08-10 17:07:19 EDT, Jerry Baker, writes...

> wrote:
>  > 
>  > In a message dated 01-08-10 16:31:32 EDT, Jerry Baker wrote.
>  > 
>  > > What program are you using to uncompress the tar.gz file?
>  > 
>  > PKUNZIP for Win32.
>  > 
>  > The same thing just about anyone who wants to play with
>  > this code would be using.
>  > 
>  > It has never failed to unpack an Apache tarball.
>  > It always does just fine with .tar.gz.
>  > 
>  > Later...
>  > Kevin
>  Do you have anything else to unpack a tarball with? It seems odd to me
>  that using either tar or WinZip gives me no trouble. The only difference
>  I notice is that you say you are using PKZip.
>  -- 
>  Jerry Baker

I don't have anything else but what I have always used ( since 1998 )
to unpack Apache tarballs under Windows. I was unpacking Apache
tarballs on Windows before there was even an Apache for Windows.

Actual info From Help|About PKZIPW is...

PKZIP(r) for Windows 32 bit Version 2.60 
Copyright 1989-1998 PKWARE, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
PKZIP Reg. U.S. Pat. and Tm. Off. Patent No. 5,051,745.

The PKZIP patent number is the SAME one that covers WinZip.
It's all the same stuff, I assure you.

I will download/locate some other tarball unpacker but if, after
3 years now, the Apache tarballs are suddenly NOT working
with some standard distributions of Win32 PKZIP/WinZip then
I guess now is the time to know that so that disclaimers can
be added to download links ( MUST use XXXXXX or something ).

What's weird is that even if the makefiles and/or source files
just have LF instead of CR/LF that shouldn't matter... unless they 
suddenly have some weird line continuations that were never there before.


View raw message