cvtdsp.pl is not a hassle, just a easy step.
Quote: you should not need cvtdsp.pl -2005 with VC14. They fixed this in the
You mentioned majority.
Nope: a majority now provide a cmake option.
Bottom line is that I and quite some fellows are sticking with the
GUI/dsw/dsp/mak. Oh so easy in all aspects for me as non unix user.
> Op 28 apr. 2017 om 19:43 heeft William A Rowe Jr <wr...@rowe-clan.net> het
> volgende geschreven:
> It's not a question of majority - a majority now provide a cmake option.
> It is a question of dependency, PCRE must be built, PCRE must be
> configured with cmake, cmake is a mandatory tool for configuring httpd
> on windows, irrespective of how many times it must be invoked. brotli
> is a new nice-to-have and offers three different build solutions.
> If invoked for httpd, the resulting *build* may be Microsoft Solution Files,
> Microsoft MSBuild Files, Microsoft NMake files and even others. It can
> emit .dsp files, not that anyone would want that today :)
> So arguing that utilizing cmake 'removes the studio files' misses the point.
> They aren't lost, they are easily created without the hassles of cvtdsp.pl
> and in a manner that can be maintained and tested by even the Unix-only
>> On Fri, Apr 28, 2017 at 12:11 PM, Steffen <i...@apachelounge.com> wrote:
>> Accurate: I only/must use cmake with pcre and brotli, rest/most is make.
>> No cmake *majority*.
>>>> Op 28 apr. 2017 om 18:45 heeft William A Rowe Jr <wr...@rowe-clan.net> het
>>>> volgende geschreven:
>>>> On Fri, Apr 28, 2017 at 11:35 AM, Jan Ehrhardt <php...@ehrhardt.nl> wrote:
>>>> William A Rowe Jr in gmane.comp.apache.devel (Fri, 28 Apr 2017 10:30:03
>>>>> You might have missed my thought here... suggesting that the CMake
>>>>> not-so-experimental build become recommended for users who want to
>>>>> build all the modules in one go including the new mod_brotli.
>>>> People like Steffen, Gregg and me disagree with you on making CMake the
>>>> only way for building Apache and all the modules in one go.
>>> And until brotli (topic of current discussion) it was convenient to hide
>>> the fact that CMake wasn't necessary. Now that the *majority* of httpd
>>> dependencies must all be configured using cmake (and build with one of a
>>> number of actual toolchains, including your favored Visual Studio GUI view,
>>> msbuild, nmake makefiles, even eclipse etc etc etc.) the most compelling
>>> reason to ship .mak + .dsp has now evaporated.
>>> I will never invoke devenv.exe "target" from the CMake output, I like the
>>> simpler forms better, but I'm happy to help diagnose anything that CMake
>>> is doing wrong in emitting the vcproj or makefile output for your
>>> The lack of understanding of why these libs exist in the .mak and not in the
>>> .dep files Gregg updated illustrates that the old .dsp files are no longer
>>> any substantive value. As I mentioned earlier, I haven't used the .dsw or
>>> these resulting .mak files in a decade because my httpd.exe+++ build all
>>> seeks an installed tree expat/pcre/apr/openssl/libxml2/zlib (ultimately, the
>>> final install prefix for httpd), and I can fix everything by munging INCLUDE
>>> and LIB envvars vs. a nightmare of unpacking sources into directories of
>>> different names than their source distribution, keeping up with build tree
>>> restructuring by the maintainers, or munging .dsp/.mak files.