httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Wang, Andy" <aw...@ptc.com>
Subject Re: Re: C99 bump prior to apr 2.0?
Date Thu, 04 Sep 2014 16:29:22 GMT
I picked 2010 because it's what I have :)

But that's sort of the point of my question.  Why pick something so old
as VC6 and not something newer, and hopefully better.

FYI, I'm not complaining or nit-picking.  I'm a complete newbie hack at
Windows development and trying to understand the train of thought here
to inform my decision making on how we build our apache based server.

Thanks,
Andy


On Thu, 2014-09-04 at 08:35 -0700, wrowe@rowe-clan.net wrote:
>         --------- Original Message --------- 
>         Subject: Re: C99 bump prior to apr 2.0?
>         From: "Wang, Andy" <awang@ptc.com>
>         Date: 9/4/14 9:48 am
>         To: "dev@httpd.apache.org" <dev@httpd.apache.org>
>         
>         Is there a reason to not bundle the msvcrtxxx.dll that's
>         microsoft includes in the redist area?
>         So that's what we've taken to doing with our apache. Simply
>         including the version that microsoft bundles with 2010 in the
>         web server bin directory.
> You keep mentioning studio 2010.  Why not studio 2012?  Studio 2013?
>  
> Each has their own msvcr###, of course.
>  

Mime
View raw message