My apologies for the Disclaimer at the bottom. I had forgotten that it was appended to all outgoing email. I've asked that it be not appended to dev-http email address, so this is basically my test to see if that work was done correctly.
2 questions to start: - where does one find the approved source for a specific release (I.e. 2.2.24)? I found the 2.2.x branch, but not sure if that is the correct location of the latest approved release, release candidate; do I need to specify tags, etc. - Any trick to getting Win32 files (CRLF instead of LF only)? On 3/11/13 3:11 PM, "William A. Rowe Jr." <wr...@rowe-clan.net> wrote: >On Mon, 11 Mar 2013 14:41:48 +0000 >Dwayne Miller <dwayne.mil...@nc4.us> wrote: > >> I'm rejoining this list after several years of inactivity. I'm >> joining primarily in regards to this thread. >> >> I would like to help if possible. > >We are starting from scratch with 2.4.x. Several key reasons; > > - Long past time to shift to an OSS msi packaging solution. > - ... with a package schema which supports 'upgrade' > - ... and rewrites utf-8 paths within the stock .conf files > - Deploys cgi-bin/conf/logs/htdocs/proxy/cache to a non-static, > path outside of program files (perhaps a tree beneath > c:\Program Data\Apache Software Foundatation\, > but why > is that hidden?) > > > >> I'm also curious as to the reason for the absence of the MSI build >> for the two most recent releases? Is this a volunteer issue? Is it >> a technology issue? A license issue? > >Well first off, they are always a convenience. ASF projects release >source code. Some ship binaries or jars for user convenience, but >those aren't releases. Binaries are largely left to platform packagers >as you'll see looking for a long list of platforms underneath >http://www.apache.org/dist/httpd/binaries/ . Netware and Win32 had >traditionally had these since there weren't 'packagers' in the unix >sense of the term. > >A system crash on this volunteer's box led to the gap for Windows. >Which has led me to creating VM's for antique VC6 (httpd 2.2) and >modern Visual studio so I never have this ordeal again. Almost had >this resolved at ApacheCon until I realized I had six database devel >packages to install for all supported apr-util dbd/dbm backends. >Should be wrapped up in the next couple of days now that I'm back >at my own office after an extended stay in Portland. > >But that catches us up with 2.2.23 and 2.2.24 builds, see above why >I had held off of 2.4.x releases. Once we ship one 2.4.x MSI there >will be no incentive to get this right until 3.x. > >> I have read the list, and just not sure what triggered the topic >> after years of MSI builds being available on the site. > >See bullet list above. > >> I have started looking at the MSI project code, the instructions for >> building in a windows environment (I normally build for Mac OSX, but >> have access to Windows/MS tools too). Hopefully I'll be caught up >> soon. > >Sounds great. > >> Disclaimer: This message is intended only for the use of the >> individual or entity to which it is addressed and may contain >> information which is privileged, confidential, proprietary, or exempt >> from disclosure under applicable law. If you are not the intended >> recipient or the person responsible for delivering the message to the >> intended recipient, you are strictly prohibited from disclosing, >> distributing, copying, or in any way using this message. If you have >> received this communication in error, please notify the sender and >> destroy and delete any copies you may have received. > >Really? You violated that disclaimer under your own volition >publishing your note to public forum. But we would really rather >not read that sort of claptrap on the public dev lists, thanks. >
