> From: Cliff Woolley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Saturday, December 16, 2000 7:48 PM > > --- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > The Apache Group has looked at Cygwin before. We do not > plan to include > > support for Cygwin right now. That may change in the future, but we > > dislike the license. > > Just as an FYI-aside: Apache 2.0 and APR actually *do* build > and run correctly almost out > of the box under Cygwin... (the last time I checked, there > were just two or three little > buglets that break the build but which are easily fixed... > I've tried submitting patches > for them before but they got ignored). > > (I know that's not exactly what you all are talking about at > the moment, I just thought I'd mention it.) And this is very cool (no sarcasm here!) I'm all for folks who can build and run under cygwin!
The point is, Apache/APR on Cygwin isn't native NT, but Cygwin compatibility upon APR compatibility. The NT version, unfortunately, only builds with the VC++ products. I personally hope that grows to include bcc (another non-unix and now free compiler), as well as folks building gcc/semi-win32 ports. To Mo's comment; The -open- Apache projects are heavily supported by firms that will ultimately release custom, tweaked, or other binary-only builds. Once we are touched by GNU, those companies have no financial incentive to help grow this open community. Go figure. That we allow cygwin users to build is great. To rely on tools to distribute, that sucks. We don't want to ask Unix users, NT users, OS2 users, or MacOSX users to go chasing down fourty tools to work with Apache, and that's a very platform independent philosopy. Footnote, I don't see that relying on the Awk from Lucient poses any significant license problems... I'll ping upstairs and test the waters.
