httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Jorge Schrauwen" <>
Subject Re: httpd win64 binaries
Date Mon, 03 Nov 2008 08:26:39 GMT
On Mon, Nov 3, 2008 at 8:10 AM, William A. Rowe, Jr.
<> wrote:
> Jorge Schrauwen wrote:
>> The subject of not having an official binary package was brought up.
>> We couldn't think of a reason why not except no body wants or has the
>> time to do it.
> That's not it.
> The problem is MS's creation.  We can either ship an 'official' msvcrt.dll
> based, DDK-built flavor, or the crap of the month 2005 or 2005sp1 or 2008
> or 2008sp1 binary.  Let's face it, flavor of the week doesn't work for an
> approach to a C runtime.

Now that you mention it I do seem to vaguely remember something about this.
So unless the MS gets there act together (which I doubt will happen in
anytime soon) we won't see any 64-bit binaries?

> I'm likely to ship that DDK built flavor if only to help ensure compatibility,
> and let the Studio team know that they don't know what they are doing.  They
> deliver a fun product for building something.  I know, I used it almost for
> 2 decades.

So selecting a version that is most popular say 2005(sp1) and only
using that one is out of the question?

> They are entirely clueless at delivering a product to be used across multiple
> developers from multiple organizations to accomplish multiple purposes.  They
> just can't grok that much multiplicity, and observe the central MS tenant of
> forcing to upgrade early and upgrade often.  This isn't compatible with open
> source binaries.  Just look at how frequently gcc is willing to bump the ver
> major.... like next to never.

But I have to agree, MS's vs 2005+ series is a mess with all the
.manifest and .local and bah!


View raw message