On Mon, 18 May 2020 at 07:42, Jan Ehrhardt <php...@ehrhardt.nl> wrote:
> Ivan Zhakov in gmane.comp.apache.apr.devel (Thu, 14 May 2020 12:08:26 > +0300): > >Do we really need to keep compatibility code for operating systems > >that are not supported for years just for a few special companies? > >They still can use APR 1.x anyway. > > > >PS: This topic has been discussed a year ago. Thread: "Supported > >Windows versions for APR 2.0 (was Re: [PATCH] Optimize > >apr_file_info_get(APR_FINFO_SIZE) on Windows)" [1] > > > >[1] > https://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/apr-dev/201905.mbox/%3ccabw-3ydoqhj7iqptuej0donv4jhrlgglytzpfkckvmz+ueg...@mail.gmail.com%3e > > Please keep in mind that admins that run a Windows server almost never > comipile Apache (including APR, APR-UTIL and APR-ICONV) themselves. Most > of them rely on prebuilt binaries from other sources. ApacheLounge > (dsw/dsp, Steffen) and ApacheHaus (mak files AFAIK, Gregg) are the most > popular prebuilt Windows suppliers. If you drop dsp support, you will > put a huge burden on people like them. > First of all the quoted text was about dropping support for Windows XP and Vista, not about dsw/dsp files. I didn't support dropping .mak files. I'm aware that most users use prebuilt binaries: I work for the company that produces such binaries as part of our product. And we still use .mak files because they are much more convenient for building than cmake. But the fact is that most projects (and dependencies) are moving or moved to CMake, so it makes sense for APR 2.0 to adopt CMake. -- Ivan Zhakov
