httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jorge Schrauwen <jorge.schrau...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: official httpd VC9 builds
Date Mon, 31 Jan 2011 10:54:59 GMT
Right, command line builds where part of the reason for still using
VC6. Alteast that rings a vague bell.

If we provide VC9 builds for 2.4+, we could do a 32-bit and 64-bit one then...
But that would mean 3 (or 2) binary packages for windows.... which
could result in a lot of extra work :(

How are the current binaries for windows made? Script or manual?

~Jorge



On Mon, Jan 31, 2011 at 11:05 AM, Issac Goldstand <margol@beamartyr.net> wrote:
> I believe also that wrowe mentioned to me that  we wanted to support
> command line (make) builds, and VC9 doesn't allow us to export makefiles.
>
> I'm +1 for making both VC6 and VC9 builds from 2.4 and on, like PHP does.
>
>  Issac
>
> On 31/01/2011 11:21, Jorge Schrauwen wrote:
>> Hi
>>
>> If I remember correctly wrowe said it was because a lot of 3rd party
>> modules use VC6.
>> Although that was a while ago so I could be wrong.
>>
>> If I'm indeed correct maybe  2.4 is a good time to switch to VC9?
>>
>> ~Jorge
>>
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Jan 31, 2011 at 10:06 AM, Ferenc Kovacs <tyra3l@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Hi.
>>>
>>> I'm a php developer, and I'm using VC9 php builds on windows(PHP 5.3 doesn't
>>> support ), hence I'm using the apache httpd builds from apachelounge.com,
>>> because you guys only offer VC6 windows builds, and I'm too lazy to build
>>> myself.
>>> My question is: why is this the case? as far as I can tell, the project
>>> builds fine with VC9, so why don't you support the VC9 builds?
>>> I would prefer the official builds for VC9, if that would be an option.
>>> If I missed something obvious there, then please bear with me, I tried to
>>> find the answer in the windows section of the download page, the wiki, and
>>> the mailing lists, but without much luck.
>>>
>>> Tyrael
>>>
>
>

Mime
View raw message