Right, command line builds where part of the reason for still using VC6. Alteast that rings a vague bell.
If we provide VC9 builds for 2.4+, we could do a 32-bit and 64-bit one then... But that would mean 3 (or 2) binary packages for windows.... which could result in a lot of extra work :( How are the current binaries for windows made? Script or manual? ~Jorge On Mon, Jan 31, 2011 at 11:05 AM, Issac Goldstand <[email protected]> wrote: > I believe also that wrowe mentioned to me that we wanted to support > command line (make) builds, and VC9 doesn't allow us to export makefiles. > > I'm +1 for making both VC6 and VC9 builds from 2.4 and on, like PHP does. > > Issac > > On 31/01/2011 11:21, Jorge Schrauwen wrote: >> Hi >> >> If I remember correctly wrowe said it was because a lot of 3rd party >> modules use VC6. >> Although that was a while ago so I could be wrong. >> >> If I'm indeed correct maybe 2.4 is a good time to switch to VC9? >> >> ~Jorge >> >> >> >> On Mon, Jan 31, 2011 at 10:06 AM, Ferenc Kovacs <[email protected]> wrote: >>> Hi. >>> >>> I'm a php developer, and I'm using VC9 php builds on windows(PHP 5.3 doesn't >>> support ), hence I'm using the apache httpd builds from apachelounge.com, >>> because you guys only offer VC6 windows builds, and I'm too lazy to build >>> myself. >>> My question is: why is this the case? as far as I can tell, the project >>> builds fine with VC9, so why don't you support the VC9 builds? >>> I would prefer the official builds for VC9, if that would be an option. >>> If I missed something obvious there, then please bear with me, I tried to >>> find the answer in the windows section of the download page, the wiki, and >>> the mailing lists, but without much luck. >>> >>> Tyrael >>> > >
