httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
Subject Re: Directions for Win32 binary httpd
Date Sat, 03 Dec 2005 13:21:29 GMT

As someone who knows all of the Windows build platforms well...
my 2 cents jives with your decision, Bill.

Using MSVC 6.0 at this point and keeping the makefiles
is the only 'sane' thing to do at this point.

There are ISSUES with just about any of the newer platforms
including the obvious "where o where did the makefiles go" stuff.

Someone said it a few messages ago ( I think it was you, Bill ).
httpd is an OPEN SOURCE project ( --keyword=source ).

Let other people who need/must/or just want to use some other
build environment have at it with other and find/solve the
issues and post solutions back to the project. That's how it's
supposed to work.

I know Apache is pretty much your "full time job", Bill... but that
still doesn't mean you're supposed to do EVERYTHING.


PS: Whatever became of that nifty perl script nmake makefile-to-project-file
conversion script you were working on? It was almost working fine
at one point? Maybe you should post that into a distribution and let
some other Perl wizard take it into the end zone. Might be needed later.

In a message dated 12/3/2005 3:19:17 AM Central Standard Time, writes:

> Ok, I've come to a conclusion; for the coming release, only msvcrt.dll
> builds under Visual C++ 6.0 make sense as our binary distribution.
> I'm not suggesting we dismiss the potential win of supporting our Studio
> 2005 compiler users(!)  But let's quickly compare...
>   . binary users generally aren't building modules, they need to plug into
>     widely distributed binary components.
>   . source users generally can build anything from source, if they need to.
>     If they want to interface several components, they can build our source
>     tarball with any compiler they like, including the 1 year free license
>     of Studio 2005.
>   . it's pretty trivial to build/install httpd with one of several pretty
>     minimal unix toolchains available.
> It seems that most of the communites are still in VC 6.  Remember the key
> reason we keep using it, MS dropped support for exporting makefiles.  With
> no makefiles, you are roped into supporting only version x or newer Studio
> products.  With .dsp/.dsw solutions, we can export makefiles on the old
> reliable VC 6, and users can load/convert these into Studio 2000/03/05.
> So I'll move ahead with all the msi tweaks required for our changed files,
> and we can reevaluate the state of things 6 mos or a year from now when we
> are almost ready to ship Apache X :)
> That's my conclusion, I'm still more than happy to hear out dissenting
> opinions.  Speak up quick, though, planning to have a package up in 
> /dev/dist
> by Sunday night for review, and push it out sometime early next week.
> Bill

View raw message