Mailing-List: contact dev-help@httpd.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@httpd.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (asf.osuosl.org: domain of jorge.schrauwen@gmail.com
 designates 66.249.82.204 as permitted sender)
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws;
        s=beta; d=gmail.com;
        h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:references;
        b=gxdU8jLlMkBPjuMHyLHeneZ5jr285QYyQpDdE3tIJO41JiSnwRh/oX1PaA5O42g65eWynQnntomIUF37ddthpLFBgXGT8zDICRG65NlAmU+Zehl0XYJB7jJoZNjKFxEKaPTzQChbRAgwr4TQ24ejONMQNXooaplxRAiXBqlySUs=
Message-ID: <43e40e000604071402o771db91csa2c985141f466ced@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 7 Apr 2006 23:02:06 +0200
From: "Jorge Schrauwen" <jorge.schrauwen@gmail.com>
To: dev@httpd.apache.org
Subject: Re: [VOTE] Release 2.2.1 as GA
In-Reply-To: <4436C1CA.50307@rowe-clan.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
	boundary="----=_Part_17471_30849335.1144443726028"
References: <43e40e000604070154h6a126604q6d8d575560f0cbb8@mail.gmail.com>
	 <4436370A.4010202@rowe-clan.net>
	 <43e40e000604070410x59be2031h3fad3344617527a3@mail.gmail.com>
	 <4436C1CA.50307@rowe-clan.net>

------=_Part_17471_30849335.1144443726028
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline

On 4/7/06, William A. Rowe, Jr. <wrowe@rowe-clan.net> wrote:
>
> Jorge Schrauwen wrote:
> > Interesting, i'll give it another shot later today, 2.2.0 was comply
> > totaled if trying as Win64.
>
> Yup, mostly hopeless back then.
>
> > Making 2.0 Win64 compatible is to mutch work IMHO.
> > Focusing on 2.2 is a great idea...
>
> Couple observations; pcre is quite LP64 dirty; this is observed under
> darwin x686 and win64.  so don't necessarily expect 2.2.1 to build win64
> clean yet out of the zip, and it may be a few more cycles before every
> issuees is resolved.
>
> It brings up a good question, which contributors are monitoring our
> flavor of pcre for updates from the pcre community, and liasoning back
> our changes to pcre to it's project?
>
>
>
Acutally it builds just fine without mod_ssl and mod_deflate...
Ok lots of warnings... so thats not so good but it seems fine.

stock config works fine,
Dav seems to work aswel

no go for 3rd party mods as was to be expected


--
~Jorge

------=_Part_17471_30849335.1144443726028
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline

<br><br><div><span class=3D"gmail_quote">On 4/7/06, <b class=3D"gmail_sende=
rname">William A. Rowe, Jr.</b> &lt;<a href=3D"mailto:wrowe@rowe-clan.net">=
wrowe@rowe-clan.net</a>&gt; wrote:</span><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" =
style=3D"border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8=
ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
Jorge Schrauwen wrote:<br>&gt; Interesting, i'll give it another shot later=
 today, 2.2.0 was comply<br>&gt; totaled if trying as Win64.<br><br>Yup, mo=
stly hopeless back then.<br><br>&gt; Making 2.0 Win64 compatible is to mutc=
h work IMHO.
<br>&gt; Focusing on 2.2 is a great idea...<br><br>Couple observations; pcr=
e is quite LP64 dirty; this is observed under<br>darwin x686 and win64.&nbs=
p;&nbsp;so don't necessarily expect 2.2.1 to build win64<br>clean yet out o=
f the zip, and it may be a few more cycles before every
<br>issuees is resolved.<br><br>It brings up a good question, which contrib=
utors are monitoring our<br>flavor of pcre for updates from the pcre commun=
ity, and liasoning back<br>our changes to pcre to it's project?<br><br>
<br></blockquote></div><br>Acutally it builds just fine without mod_ssl and=
 mod_deflate...<br>Ok lots of warnings... so thats not so good but it seems=
 fine.<br><br>stock config works fine,<br>Dav seems to work aswel<br><br>
no go for 3rd party mods as was to be expected<br><br><br><br clear=3D"all"=
><br>-- <br>~Jorge

------=_Part_17471_30849335.1144443726028--