When I see this list then I get the feeling that 2.1/2.2 is not a lot tested
on Win32 yet.
I build 2.2 on Win32 (without mod_dbd).
If you want to test it, you can get the win32 binary from me, please contact
me off-list.
Also I build some popular modules (mod_security, mod_view, mod_watch,
mod_fcgid and mod_log_rotate), see www.apachelounge.com.
Steffen
----- Original Message -----
From: "Nick Kew" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <dev@httpd.apache.org>
Sent: Tuesday, November 29, 2005 2:25 PM
Subject: Re: [vote] 2.2.0 tarballs
On Tuesday 29 November 2005 12:24, Colm MacCarthaigh wrote:
On Tue, Nov 29, 2005 at 05:53:52AM -0600, Jess Holle wrote:
> I'm no commiter but must concur -- until the build runs cleanly on
> Windows 2.2.0 should not go out the door.
>
> Not everyone may like it, but Windows is a major Apache usage platform
> these days.
mod_dbd isn't included in the win32 build environment yet, so it has no
effect on a standard build.
That's another oversight. I can (reluctantly) live with that - though it
should go into the release notes, or at least errata.
The problem is when someone builds it themselves, and the build dies
on them. What signal is that sending? That build, in the hands of
someone who knows what he's doing, should NOT fail. Or, if it does,
the fact MUST be clearly documented.
It's a full week since I noted the issue in
http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=apache-httpd-dev&m=113266737311013&w=2
That references the first, and so far only, report I've seen of anyone
trying
to build it on windows (for values of "it" encompassing ANY of 2.1.x).
For the time being I'll be content with either a definite "worksforme" or
a "fails because" that can be properly documented. But not with an
undocumented situation that apparently leaves users just dangling.
--
Nick Kew
