Is there a reason to not bundle the msvcrtxxx.dll that's microsoft includes in the redist area? So that's what we've taken to doing with our apache. Simply including the version that microsoft bundles with 2010 in the web server bin directory.
Thanks, Andy On Wed, 2014-09-03 at 17:52 -0500, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote: And to answer the question, VC6 for httpd 2.2 is simply for msvcrt.DLL compatibility and no-surprises upgrades. It is suboptimal, but not as suboptimal as MS's active disdain for msvcr###.dll users. "Wang, Andy" <aw...@ptc.com> wrote: On Wed, 2014-09-03 at 09:27 -0700, wr...@rowe-clan.net wrote: > Finally returned to VC6, having replaced my older svn on Windows > which would no longer handshake with svn.apache.org and bumped into > a single issue. > > Building VC6 binaries for win32, I was bitten by r1508904 which > introduces > a C99 type prior to releasing apr 2.0 (probably not a good idea to > make > such changes in a maintenance branch). I don't mean to tangent this discussion too much but I'm curious. So this change back in 2.2.26(?) was what finally made me start to use visual studio 2010 for our windows builds (and boy is that an ugly mess). Is there a reason why you're sticking with VC6 to build? I was surprised that this change made it into a maintenance branch, but honestly was looking for something to push me to building on VC2010. Thanks, Andy
