Jorge Schrauwen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on 2008-11-3 16:26
On Mon, Nov 3, 2008 at 8:10 AM, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
Jorge Schrauwen wrote:
The subject of not having an official binary package was brought up.
We couldn't think of a reason why not except no body wants or has the
time to do it.
That's not it.
The problem is MS's creation. We can either ship an 'official'
msvcrt.dll
based, DDK-built flavor, or the crap of the month 2005 or 2005sp1 or 2008
or 2008sp1 binary. Let's face it, flavor of the week doesn't work for an
approach to a C runtime.
Now that you mention it I do seem to vaguely remember something about
this.
So unless the MS gets there act together (which I doubt will happen in
anytime soon) we won't see any 64-bit binaries?
Though we are eager to see an 'official' 64-bit Windows httpd release, but
if not binaries, why shouldn't there be an x64 configured Apache.sln? It
will be already great to let people have the chance to do their own x64
compilation.
It was made clear that 32-bit will soon be over at the Windows server end
(http://blogs.technet.com/windowsserver/archive/2008/10/28/announcing-windows-server-2008-r2.aspx).
I guess most of us still think that Windows Server remains as an important
platform for Apache. So it's really time to make this "little" step further.
So selecting a version that is most popular say 2005(sp1) and only
using that one is out of the question?
Jorge's Win64 binaries already seem to work perfectly on mainstream Windows
versions. Shouldn't it be able to improve to be "offical"?
(I just found it can not load some modules built with VS005/Win008, though).
Bing
