httpd-users mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Schultz, Gary - COMM" <>
Subject RE: [users@httpd] Apache HTTP Server 2.2.2 Released
Date Tue, 02 May 2006 11:45:42 GMT
I know there are great people out there building great Win32 Apache 2.2.x
binaries, but the problem is that some IT managers, like mine, want a stable
Win32 Apache from the Apache Software Foundation. So we will continue with
2.0.55 until the ASF releases a stable Win32 binary. I would guess that
others are in the same situation. This isn't pissing and moaning, this is
life in our IT world. I'm content to wait, Apache 2.0.55 does everything our
agency needs to do.

Gary T. Schultz
IT Administrator
Wisconsin Department of Commerce

-----Original Message-----
From: William A. Rowe, Jr. [] 
Sent: Monday, May 01, 2006 6:50 AM
Subject: Re: [users@httpd] Apache HTTP Server 2.2.2 Released

Yevgen Borodin wrote:
> Why couldn't there be a stable 2.2.2 Win32 Apache release?
> So tired of random bugs in 2.0.55... :(

Because Apache HTTP Server is a source code development project.

We don't exist to help users of any specific platform.

Binaries are provided at the convenience of a contributor, if at all.

Why on earth would Win32 merit a comment or priority over, say, a Solaris
pkg or a Linux rpm?

If you want random bugs, try a build of 2.2.0, that should send you
screaming back to 2.0.40.

Read the announce again.  Did it say there *ISN'T*?  Or rather, that there
would not be?  Or did it say anything at all about it?

I've said it time and time again, 2.2.2 will be the first Win32 binary
distribution to hit the httpd download site from -me-.  Others have rolled
binaries of 2.2.0 you can obtain.

The biggest pissing and moaning, more than, was for
Guess what?  The ASF has already finished the notification process of 0.9.7
and our mod_ssl, so there ya go.  For binary compat, with all the folks that
already use mod_ssl, in 2.0 they used 0.9.7 forever.  So that's what it is.

In the interim, shaking out the cobwebs from my december efforts to get 2.2
installer working, and think that it's there.  I'm checking documentation to
see if openssl 0.9.8 notification has to be made, or if it's already done.
It makes no sense to have 2.2 bundled with the old 0.9.7 - we're in 2006
already, and 0.9.8 shipped within weeks of 2.2.0.  So why use anything but?

Even if it didn't have a bit more installation testing and comprehensive
rewrite of the README page, along with this openssl notification question
... I'm just as tempted to leave this sit another few days, seeing that it
took a whopping three hours for folks to start pissing and moaning.

Is it missing because notification process isn't finished?  Missing because
of the README update for wldap32.dll dependencies?  Missing because of the
major refactoring of the config files?  Or missing because a few whiners bit
the hand that feeds them?  Only one will ever know.

We voulenteer to this effort for fun.  If you want to treat the voulenteers
as your paid staff, you can damn well pay them.  Lots of folks know how to
win32 binaries for you and would be happy to take your check.  Since 2.2
dropped and the complaints started, several HTTP'ers have even suggested
that binaries should be dropped, altogether, and leave folks to their own
devices or OS vendor to provide them the binaries.  Hopefully for you that
isn't what happens.


The official User-To-User support forum of the Apache HTTP Server Project.
See <URL:> for more info.
To unsubscribe, e-mail:
   "   from the digest:
For additional commands, e-mail:

The official User-To-User support forum of the Apache HTTP Server Project.
See <URL:> for more info.
To unsubscribe, e-mail:
   "   from the digest:
For additional commands, e-mail:

View raw message