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
