On Mon, Nov 3, 2008 at 10:23 AM, Bing Swen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 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. > Currently there is only a .dsw and no sln's, they get generated on import. For some project on import there is a x64 platform available but not all.
I'm not sure how doable that would be? If it was easy I'm sure someone (wrowe) would probably have done this already. Easiest way to do it with the current dsw/sln is to remove the project that have and x64 targets, then create a new x64 target for the entire solution. > 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). > I compiled them on vs2008 IIRC (not sure only boot into the vm when need to compile) Sadly the exact same version is needed or else it refuses to load. That is what wrowe mentioned above with all the minor version bumps here and there. > > Bing > Jorge
