Mailing-List: contact dev-help@httpd.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@httpd.apache.org
Message-ID: <02de01c17d1f$fd77a760$93c0b0d0@v505>
From: "William A. Rowe, Jr." <wrowe@covalent.net>
To: <dev@httpd.apache.org>
References: <20011204180020.B13181@Lithium.MeepZor.Com>
Subject: Re: Source in .msi packages
Date: Tue, 4 Dec 2001 17:55:01 -0600
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

No, it was a majority decision...

...the majority decision saiz that 99% of win32 users never owned
or installed a compiler.  The other majority decision says that Unix
packages never contain the source tree.

Of course, they do include /lib, /include, /libexec etc, so you should
be set for building -against- apache if you so desire.

And I have taken to packaging a win32 'zip' package of the sources, 
including (for win32) the 'exported' .mak files from .dsp vc projects.
(In /dist/httpd/)  So everyone should be quite happy.

Bill


From: "Rodent of Unusual Size" <Ken.Coar@Golux.Com>
Sent: Tuesday, December 04, 2001 5:00 PM


> I just noticed that the dist/binaries/win32/ page says
> that as of 1.3.22 we stopped providing .msi packages
> that include the source.  I don't recall that being
> discussed; can someone point me to a message in the
> thread if there was one?
> 
> If it *wasn't* discussed, was this a unilateral decision?
> Because I'm strongly opposed to this continual churn
> in what and how we provide Windows packages, and I
> strongly think we should do for 1.3.22 what we did for
> earlier versions: have with-source and no-source versions
> of the packages.