httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jorge Schrauwen <>
Subject Re: Windows x64 binaries
Date Mon, 16 Jan 2006 16:21:24 GMT
>first - the ASF only distributes binaries built by project members; that
>doesn't prevent you or anyone of offering an independent binary build.

Yes, i know that... but since Apache on x64 will probeby bring a lot of user asking questions
Although it isn't an official ASF distribution.
I thought it better to ask if there would be major objections.

>second - I *don't* forsee that we will backport all the compatibility of
>Win64 to httpd 2.2.  It's shaping up to be an evolutionary change that would
>be better 'supported' on trunk/ and then later, in 2.4's release.
I don't think any special patches where aplied to the 2.2.0 source to make it compile?
Or am i wrong on that?

>This means that let's work with trunk, snapshots, and eventually an alpha
>release of 2.3.x to get some developers compiling and testing httpd 2.x on
>Win64.  As I mentioned on IRC, right now a 'user binary' doesn't help all
>that much because they really can't help identify the code bugs resulting
>from the Win64 port.  Developers (who have their own compiler installed) can
>help track down the source of bugs.

I complelty agree, that its would be better to get support in there for trunk, and not bother
with 2.2...
Afther our conversation on IRC.
I'm not sure many Dev's have acces to a 64bit cpu and/or windows x64 (pro or server)

>Hmmm?  We want the dependencies; building static means you slurp in the
>clib into each and every loaded module.  There's only one, the c runtime,
>I don't see us having bindings to the MFC or STL libraries.
I see your point, the compiled code has a huge increase in size. 

>There is a subcomponent package for the c runtime, to ensure it's properly
>distributed and registered, as part of the InstallShield base.
You i saw that when messing with the VS 2005 installer module aswel.

~ Jorge
View raw message