httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Warren Lewis" <>
Subject RE: Win32 Port of Apache 2.2?
Date Sat, 25 Feb 2006 17:37:02 GMT that we got that out of the way. :-) Any thoughts on when 2.2.1 might be
released and official binaries will be made available for win32? 

thanks - Warren

-----Original Message-----
From: Jess Holle [] 
Sent: Friday, February 24, 2006 6:46 PM
Cc: Josh Fenlason
Subject: Re: Win32 Port of Apache 2.2?

William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
> Jess Holle wrote:
>> William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
>>> When Apache declares some tarball 2.2.0 released, it never changes.  
>>> It won't
>>> change until a 2.2.1 is released.  And 2.2.1 has not been released 
>>> due to bugs that affect *ALL* platforms, not just your preferred 
>>> platform.
>> Just to be clear, Josh and I (who are coworkers) don't necessarily 
>> have a "preferred" platform.  We have to build, ship, and support a 
>> consistent quasi-auto-configuring Apache on Windows, Solaris, AIX, 
>> and (soon) some Linux variants.
> Sounds familiar :)
>> We need all of the above to work and have solid "official" sources 
>> available.
> Then use the httpd-2.2.0 tarball.  If you are building all those 
> platforms, We know full well you've tweaked those in order to get 
> -most- of them to build properly to your requirements.  Why would you 
> expect win32 to be different?
Actually we do very little tweaking at all on Solaris -- unless Josh has started doing so
lately.  AIX has a few gotchas, of course, primarily due to its "special" linking limitations,
er, features. 

With Apache 2.0.x we do no tweaking to speak of from the official sources.

This is not including cross-platform patches we apply, of course (which, yes, we provide back
to reduce our maintenance load, but some just are apparently not of general interest, e.g.
a special response header in mod_deflate to disable its operation, e.g. on a per-response
basis from mod_jk, etc).
> Note that apr/build/ and apr/build/ make 
> moving from a unix tarball to a dos file tree, and from .dsp's 
> exported into make files into directory-independent make files quite 
> trivial.
That's good to know.
> The fact that a -rev2 even exists was to get more participation from
> win32
> developers in order to ensure forward progress, for a clean 2.2.1 result.
> You can find the same quasi-official changes in
> Perhaps there is some reason you didn't shout when the available 
> candidates were posted to this list (or testers@) and it wouldn't 
> build on win32 for you?
I think that was a timing issue as to when Josh first started working on 2.2.0.
> The time to holler is then, not now, and will be again soon as 2.2.1 
> becomes available.
> httpd's success or lack thereof is directly proportional to how many 
> people get involved, and get involved early, from all walks of work 
> and life.

Jess Holle

View raw message