httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "William A. Rowe, Jr." <wr...@rowe-clan.net>
Subject Re: [VOTE] Release Apache HTTP server 2.2.11
Date Fri, 19 Dec 2008 04:13:25 GMT
Bing Swen wrote:
> 
> Sorry for this. Since 2+ years have passed (since httpd-2.2.2, the last
> Win-x64 compilable version), I thought of some progress even at the cost
> of such complexity.

Bing; in all fairness, 2.2.2 was the first version robust on windows, and
didn't yet build clean on x64.  Blame any number of factors, but the bottom
line was that it was rushed and the handful of win32 folks hadn't been able
to keep up (much like the 2.3.0-alpha candidate --- the difference being,
it was an alpha ;-)

Actually I personally wish 2.2.0-2.2.2 were the end of the betas of 2.1.0
but that's water under the bridge.  In any case I'm happy to see x.{odd}
versions go out that don't build under Platform X; if someone can be testing
and reviewing the next generation, that's good enough for me.

There are two flavors of complexity; the flavor you propose --- we hand
spin .dsw+.dsp, .sln+.vcproj, makefiles, and so on and so on and so on.
Guaranteed -1 "This shit don't build on my platform!!!" once it's in the
GA stable cycle, and little wonder.  Change happens, and with multiple
ways of describing the build, they fall out of sync.

And there's another flavor of complexity, a build system that works just
about everywhere if someone is willing to put in the effort.  That does
preclude autoconf, because it's impossible to handle all of the flavors
of m4 parsing behavior and shell script in a way that seamlessly works
for all target OS's, even though autoconf is a 80/20 solution.  We get
regular reports of screwups in autoconf on the usual *$nix* platforms,
never mind oddballs (endianneSs in the most recent 2.2.10 tarballs come
to mind).  But such things are non trivial problems, and if you have
the time, energy, funds or anything else to invest, consider the problem
solved.

Otherwise, please don't shoot the messenger.

.dsw+.dsp lets us provide everyone with a makefiles and Makefile.win that
works ***everywhere***.  If you insist on a GUI, there is one extra step
for Visual Studio 2002 (.NET) - Visual Studio 2008 users.  But would you
like that we provide you a Visual Studio 2008 project that VS 2005 users
can't even load - due to the fact that the MS VS team insists on breaking
the project description layout on every successive release?

As I said before, it's a non-trivial problem, and if you want to vent
please be our guest, and vent at the source of the problem, not we.

Yours,

Bill




Mime
View raw message