httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Randy Kobes <ra...@theoryx5.uwinnipeg.ca>
Subject Re: Policies on binaries?
Date Sat, 19 Nov 2005 04:43:22 GMT
On Fri, 18 Nov 2005, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:

[ ... ]
> My issue came down to asking repeatedly, and recieving one request on
> users@httpd to date.  To which I again asked for any willing to verify
> Apache 1.3 win32/binary releases to subscribe and speak up on testers@httpd.
>
> Guess what?  No voulenteers :)  So considering Apache is a voulenteer effort,
> I take that as a sign of no interest.
>
> I'll pull down 1.3.x as no longer actively supported from Win32, but don't
> expect the same by any other platform.  Obviously on Unix, 1.3 remains a
> very good solution.  Since Netware is closer to Unix than OS2/Win32, I'm
> not surprised by your feedback.
>
> In the process, with all the various vulnerabilities and bug fixes, if a
> platform maintainer hasn't updated 1.3 or 2.0 in *a year*, I'll pull those
> down as well (leaving them over on archive.apache.org.)
>
> Comments/Feedback before I proceed?

In the perl world (cgi scripts and mod_perl), I've had
in the past year a few people ask me things about using
Apache/1.3; it's sometimes a matter of not being able to
migrate to Apache/2.0, or, more often, they use Win32
as a development machine for a Unix 1.3 system (one
user was using it, and mod_perl, on Windows 95!)

Although the Win32 1.3 user base is obviously shrinking,
it seems there are still some users out there - would the
downloads recorded in the access_logs be useful to give
a rough idea of the relative proportion of 1.3 users
compared to 2.0? In any case, since it's already made
up, and also because there's a longer period between
releases, it seems a shame to not release it - if it
helps any, I tested out the .msi version, and it
installed and ran fine.

-- 
best regards,
randy kobes

Mime
View raw message