Re: 2.4.20 Change dsp: Win32-specific build files.
On 03/24/2016 06:05 AM, William A Rowe Jr wrote: > I observed the note below in 2010 when that comment was first made (I > cribbed that comment from 2.2.x checkin). So I now wonder if that note > was based on an Express edition perhaps? Or on an early release - and > MS later added or fixed the conversion? I can't be more specific at > this point, but maybe someone else remembers such an issue. I do remember from a couple of years ago that the results of the conversion were mostly useless/broken for me, but I no longer have a copy of VS2010 to check... so I can't offer anything more than "there was probably a good reason to make that comment at some point". :/ --Jacob
Re: 2.4.20 Change dsp: Win32-specific build files.
Steffan, I was plesantly surprised when I tested this on an early VS2015 preview and the conversion was still supported. I observed the note below in 2010 when that comment was first made (I cribbed that comment from 2.2.x checkin). So I now wonder if that note was based on an Express edition perhaps? Or on an early release - and MS later added or fixed the conversion? I can't be more specific at this point, but maybe someone else remembers such an issue. On Mar 24, 2016 05:39, "Steffen" <i...@apachelounge.com> wrote: > Good now. > > Little note: Visual Studio 2010 users cannot convert our .dsp files. > That's not true, I convert them. > > Steffen > > > > From: William A Rowe Jr Sent: Wednesday, March 23, 2016 9:23 PM > To: httpd Subject: ***** Re: 2.4.20 Change dsp: Win32-specific build > files. > > On Wed, Mar 23, 2016 at 11:12 AM, Steffen <i...@apachelounge.com> wrote: > > I went earlier back, so I did a .dsp/GUI build with no issues. > Build with SVN revision 1736328. > > Running looks also fine sofar. > > > > > > Glad to hear, thanks for testing. I've updated the commit log message > to more clearly explain the intent and avoid future confusion; > > +Going forwards, keep win32 build in svn once a tree is stable. > +Visual Studio 2010 users cannot convert our .dsp files, and > +ddk toolchain users couldn't either. > + > +Applies the same logic as r1100294 on the 2.2.x branch. > + > Until the cmake build schema is entirely mature, these files > are needed for command-line builds of the 2.4 tree, and are > expected to change very little until the EOL of 2.4 branch. > -The actual .dsp files are entirely unusable for any shipping > -version of MSVC/Visual Studio, while the .mak exports of these > -projects are usable on any flavor of the MS build environment. > + > +The .dsp source files are not directly usable for any shipping > +version of MSVC/Visual Studio (post-Visual Studio 97 release), > +while the .mak exports of these projects are usable on any flavor > +of the MS nmake build environment. The .dsp source files are > +retained for those users wishing to import these projects into > +the modern vcproj/sln file format. > > > Hope that is more clear, further edit suggestions are welcome. > > > Cheers, > > > Bill >
Re: 2.4.20 Change dsp: Win32-specific build files.
Good now. Little note: Visual Studio 2010 users cannot convert our .dsp files. That's not true, I convert them. Steffen From: William A Rowe Jr Sent: Wednesday, March 23, 2016 9:23 PM To: httpd Subject: * Re: 2.4.20 Change dsp: Win32-specific build files. On Wed, Mar 23, 2016 at 11:12 AM, Steffen <i...@apachelounge.com> wrote: I went earlier back, so I did a .dsp/GUI build with no issues. Build with SVN revision 1736328. Running looks also fine sofar. Glad to hear, thanks for testing. I've updated the commit log message to more clearly explain the intent and avoid future confusion; +Going forwards, keep win32 build in svn once a tree is stable. +Visual Studio 2010 users cannot convert our .dsp files, and +ddk toolchain users couldn't either. + +Applies the same logic as r1100294 on the 2.2.x branch. + Until the cmake build schema is entirely mature, these files are needed for command-line builds of the 2.4 tree, and are expected to change very little until the EOL of 2.4 branch. -The actual .dsp files are entirely unusable for any shipping -version of MSVC/Visual Studio, while the .mak exports of these -projects are usable on any flavor of the MS build environment. + +The .dsp source files are not directly usable for any shipping +version of MSVC/Visual Studio (post-Visual Studio 97 release), +while the .mak exports of these projects are usable on any flavor +of the MS nmake build environment. The .dsp source files are +retained for those users wishing to import these projects into +the modern vcproj/sln file format. Hope that is more clear, further edit suggestions are welcome. Cheers, Bill
Re: 2.4.20 Change dsp: Win32-specific build files.
On Wed, Mar 23, 2016 at 11:12 AM, Steffenwrote: > I went earlier back, so I did a .dsp/GUI build with no issues. > > Build with SVN revision 1736328. > > Running looks also fine sofar. > Glad to hear, thanks for testing. I've updated the commit log message to more clearly explain the intent and avoid future confusion; +Going forwards, keep win32 build in svn once a tree is stable. +Visual Studio 2010 users cannot convert our .dsp files, and +ddk toolchain users couldn't either. + +Applies the same logic as r1100294 on the 2.2.x branch. + Until the cmake build schema is entirely mature, these files are needed for command-line builds of the 2.4 tree, and are expected to change very little until the EOL of 2.4 branch. -The actual .dsp files are entirely unusable for any shipping -version of MSVC/Visual Studio, while the .mak exports of these -projects are usable on any flavor of the MS build environment. + +The .dsp source files are not directly usable for any shipping +version of MSVC/Visual Studio (post-Visual Studio 97 release), +while the .mak exports of these projects are usable on any flavor +of the MS nmake build environment. The .dsp source files are +retained for those users wishing to import these projects into +the modern vcproj/sln file format. Hope that is more clear, further edit suggestions are welcome. Cheers, Bill
Re: 2.4.20 Change dsp: Win32-specific build files.
Running now AL: mod_http2 (v1.4.4, nghttp2 1.8.0), initializing... Was running 1.2.8 (git). Little confusing the version number httpd vs git (1.4.4 vs 1.2.8) Still worried about the memory footprint: Mod_http2 1.0.11 (2.4.18) average ~100 MB peaks with 200 MB. with 1.2.8 average ~200 MB with peaks ~600 MB. I shall keep an eye on 1.4.4. > Op 23 mrt. 2016 om 17:26 heeft Stefan Eissing> het volgende geschreven: > > Thanks, Steffen! > >> Am 23.03.2016 um 17:12 schrieb Steffen : >> >> I went earlier back, so I did a .dsp/GUI build with no issues. >> >> Build with SVN revision 1736328. >> >> Running looks also fine sofar. >> >> >> >>> On Wednesday 23/03/2016 at 12:50, Jim Jagielski wrote: >>> Thx... I would like to T today if possible, because I was hoping >>> for a release by the end of this week, but I also don't want to >>> have to punt 2.4.20 as well, so we should wait. >>> On Mar 23, 2016, at 7:39 AM, Steffen wrote: Sure I like to do, but sorry I am out of town, to morrow morning (my time) I can build. Maybe Jan E and/or Gregg can give it a .dsp try. When I look to the changes, it should build. > On Wednesday 23/03/2016 at 12:36, Jim Jagielski wrote: > Can you do a quick check that HEAD of 2.4 builds for you? > > THX!! > >> On Mar 23, 2016, at 7:28 AM, Steffen wrote: >> >> Indeed wrowe did not change any .dsp files. and the changes from wrowe >> does not break a .dsp build. >> >> My attention was just the statement of wrowe that .dsp files are not >> usable, which is not true. >> >> >> >>> On Wednesday 23/03/2016 at 12:20, Yann Ylavic wrote: On Wed, Mar 23, 2016 at 11:18 AM, Jan Ehrhardt wrote: Steffen in gmane.comp.apache.devel (Wed, 23 Mar 2016 09:15:45 +0100): > Saw that wrowe did a change win make files in 2.4. branche. > > The comment says the the .dsp files are entirely ! unusable. > > I can tell that they are entirely usable with V9-VC14. What was the > issue ? I agree with Steffen. This week I have built httpd 2.4.19 (VC9 / VC11 / VC14 & x86 / x64) using the .dsp files. I even commented that the http2.dsp was missing a line. They are the easiest way to build httpd on Windows. >>> >>> Does building 2.4.x from the .dsp files still work or not? >>> >>> AIUI (but my understanding of Windows is quite limited), Bill did not >>> change any dsp file (but removing mod_lbmethod_rr which did not work), >>> he "just" added some .mak and .dep files. >>> Why would that break dsp files? >
Re: 2.4.20 Change dsp: Win32-specific build files.
Thanks, Steffen! > Am 23.03.2016 um 17:12 schrieb Steffen: > > I went earlier back, so I did a .dsp/GUI build with no issues. > > Build with SVN revision 1736328. > > Running looks also fine sofar. > > > > On Wednesday 23/03/2016 at 12:50, Jim Jagielski wrote: >> Thx... I would like to T today if possible, because I was hoping >> for a release by the end of this week, but I also don't want to >> have to punt 2.4.20 as well, so we should wait. >> >>> On Mar 23, 2016, at 7:39 AM, Steffen wrote: >>> >>> Sure I like to do, but sorry I am out of town, to morrow morning (my time) >>> I can build. >>> >>> Maybe Jan E and/or Gregg can give it a .dsp try. >>> >>> When I look to the changes, it should build. >>> >>> >>> >>> On Wednesday 23/03/2016 at 12:36, Jim Jagielski wrote: Can you do a quick check that HEAD of 2.4 builds for you? THX!! > On Mar 23, 2016, at 7:28 AM, Steffen wrote: > > Indeed wrowe did not change any .dsp files. and the changes from wrowe > does not break a .dsp build. > > My attention was just the statement of wrowe that .dsp files are not > usable, which is not true. > > > > On Wednesday 23/03/2016 at 12:20, Yann Ylavic wrote: >> On Wed, Mar 23, 2016 at 11:18 AM, Jan Ehrhardt >> wrote: >>> Steffen in gmane.comp.apache.devel (Wed, 23 Mar 2016 09:15:45 +0100): Saw that wrowe did a change win make files in 2.4. branche. The comment says the the .dsp files are entirely ! unusable. I can tell that they are entirely usable with V9-VC14. What was the issue ? >>> >>> I agree with Steffen. This week I have built httpd 2.4.19 (VC9 / VC11 / >>> VC14 & x86 / x64) using the .dsp files. I even commented that the >>> http2.dsp was missing a line. They are the easiest way to build httpd on >>> Windows. >> >> Does building 2.4.x from the .dsp files still work or not? >> >> AIUI (but my understanding of Windows is quite limited), Bill did not >> change any dsp file (but removing mod_lbmethod_rr which did not work), >> he "just" added some .mak and .dep files. >> Why would that break dsp files? > > >>> >>> >> > >
Re: 2.4.20 Change dsp: Win32-specific build files.
I went earlier back, so I did a .dsp/GUI build with no issues. Build with SVN revision 1736328. Running looks also fine sofar. On Wednesday 23/03/2016 at 12:50, Jim Jagielski wrote: Thx... I would like to T today if possible, because I was hoping for a release by the end of this week, but I also don't want to have to punt 2.4.20 as well, so we should wait. On Mar 23, 2016, at 7:39 AM, Steffenwrote: Sure I like to do, but sorry I am out of town, to morrow morning (my time) I can build. Maybe Jan E and/or Gregg can give it a .dsp try. When I look to the changes, it should build. On Wednesday 23/03/2016 at 12:36, Jim Jagielski wrote: Can you do a quick check that HEAD of 2.4 builds for you? THX!! On Mar 23, 2016, at 7:28 AM, Steffen wrote: Indeed wrowe did not change any .dsp files. and the changes from wrowe does not break a .dsp build. My attention was just the statement of wrowe that .dsp files are not usable, which is not true. On Wednesday 23/03/2016 at 12:20, Yann Ylavic wrote: On Wed, Mar 23, 2016 at 11:18 AM, Jan Ehrhardt wrote: Steffen in gmane.comp.apache.devel (Wed, 23 Mar 2016 09:15:45 +0100): Saw that wrowe did a change win make files in 2.4. branche. The comment says the the .dsp files are entirely ! unusable. I can tell that they are entirely usable with V9-VC14. What was the issue ? I agree with Steffen. This week I have built httpd 2.4.19 (VC9 / VC11 / VC14 & x86 / x64) using the .dsp files. I even commented that the http2.dsp was missing a line. They are the easiest way to build httpd on Windows. Does building 2.4.x from the .dsp files still work or not? AIUI (but my understanding of Windows is quite limited), Bill did not change any dsp file (but removing mod_lbmethod_rr which did not work), he "just" added some .mak and .dep files. Why would that break dsp files?
Re: 2.4.20 Change dsp: Win32-specific build files.
On Mar 23, 2016 3:15 AM, "Steffen"wrote: > > Saw that wrowe did a change win make files in 2.4. branche. > > The comment says the the .dsp flies are entirely ! unusable. > > I can tell that they are entirely usable with V9-VC14. What was the issue ? They were directly usable on VC98. They were also directly exportable to .mak files on that version of the MS build tooling, alone. In post-VC98 (which cannot be obtained from Microsoft any longer due to the Sun settlement) they are not "usable" - but they are convertible, although they are not exportable. There is lots of documentation on how to translate these into the modern solution file formats in order to be able to build httpd on Windows. But they don't "simply work", e.g. " usable", without this manual conversion process, do we agree? The commit did not remove the .dsp files, those who wish to convert the files into the new GUI schema remain able to do so. > So please explain why for you it is not usable ? Some more context can be found here; http://markmail.org/thread/k2d6nwkz5w3p35yl If the commit looks familiar, it aught to... http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=revision=1100294 http://markmail.org/message/4gyjktdp7ls3cxij > Change comment: > > The actual .dsp files are entirely unusable for any shipping > version of MSVC/Visual Studio, while the .mak exports of these > projects are usable on any flavor of the MS build environment. I'm happy to edit the commit log message to better reflect the comments above. I hope that clarifies this commit and resolves any confusion I might have created?
Re: 2.4.20 Change dsp: Win32-specific build files.
Thx... I would like to T today if possible, because I was hoping for a release by the end of this week, but I also don't want to have to punt 2.4.20 as well, so we should wait. > On Mar 23, 2016, at 7:39 AM, Steffenwrote: > > Sure I like to do, but sorry I am out of town, to morrow morning (my time) I > can build. > > Maybe Jan E and/or Gregg can give it a .dsp try. > > When I look to the changes, it should build. > > > > On Wednesday 23/03/2016 at 12:36, Jim Jagielski wrote: >> Can you do a quick check that HEAD of 2.4 builds for you? >> >> THX!! >> >>> On Mar 23, 2016, at 7:28 AM, Steffen wrote: >>> >>> Indeed wrowe did not change any .dsp files. and the changes from wrowe does >>> not break a .dsp build. >>> >>> My attention was just the statement of wrowe that .dsp files are not >>> usable, which is not true. >>> >>> >>> >>> On Wednesday 23/03/2016 at 12:20, Yann Ylavic wrote: On Wed, Mar 23, 2016 at 11:18 AM, Jan Ehrhardt wrote: > Steffen in gmane.comp.apache.devel (Wed, 23 Mar 2016 09:15:45 +0100): >> Saw that wrowe did a change win make files in 2.4. branche. >> >> The comment says the the .dsp files are entirely ! unusable. >> >> I can tell that they are entirely usable with V9-VC14. What was the >> issue ? > > I agree with Steffen. This week I have built httpd 2.4.19 (VC9 / VC11 / > VC14 & x86 / x64) using the .dsp files. I even commented that the > http2.dsp was missing a line. They are the easiest way to build httpd on > Windows. Does building 2.4.x from the .dsp files still work or not? AIUI (but my understanding of Windows is quite limited), Bill did not change any dsp file (but removing mod_lbmethod_rr which did not work), he "just" added some .mak and .dep files. Why would that break dsp files? >>> >>> >> > >
Re: 2.4.20 Change dsp: Win32-specific build files.
Sure I like to do, but sorry I am out of town, to morrow morning (my time) I can build. Maybe Jan E and/or Gregg can give it a .dsp try. When I look to the changes, it should build. On Wednesday 23/03/2016 at 12:36, Jim Jagielski wrote: Can you do a quick check that HEAD of 2.4 builds for you? THX!! On Mar 23, 2016, at 7:28 AM, Steffenwrote: Indeed wrowe did not change any .dsp files. and the changes from wrowe does not break a .dsp build. My attention was just the statement of wrowe that .dsp files are not usable, which is not true. On Wednesday 23/03/2016 at 12:20, Yann Ylavic wrote: On Wed, Mar 23, 2016 at 11:18 AM, Jan Ehrhardt wrote: Steffen in gmane.comp.apache.devel (Wed, 23 Mar 2016 09:15:45 +0100): Saw that wrowe did a change win make files in 2.4. branche. The comment says the the .dsp files are entirely ! unusable. I can tell that they are entirely usable with V9-VC14. What was the issue ? I agree with Steffen. This week I have built httpd 2.4.19 (VC9 / VC11 / VC14 & x86 / x64) using the .dsp files. I even commented that the http2.dsp was missing a line. They are the easiest way to build httpd on Windows. Does building 2.4.x from the .dsp files still work or not? AIUI (but my understanding of Windows is quite limited), Bill did not change any dsp file (but removing mod_lbmethod_rr which did not work), he "just" added some .mak and .dep files. Why would that break dsp files?
Re: 2.4.20 Change dsp: Win32-specific build files.
Can you do a quick check that HEAD of 2.4 builds for you? THX!! > On Mar 23, 2016, at 7:28 AM, Steffenwrote: > > Indeed wrowe did not change any .dsp files. and the changes from wrowe does > not break a .dsp build. > > My attention was just the statement of wrowe that .dsp files are not usable, > which is not true. > > > > On Wednesday 23/03/2016 at 12:20, Yann Ylavic wrote: >> On Wed, Mar 23, 2016 at 11:18 AM, Jan Ehrhardt wrote: >>> Steffen in gmane.comp.apache.devel (Wed, 23 Mar 2016 09:15:45 +0100): Saw that wrowe did a change win make files in 2.4. branche. The comment says the the .dsp files are entirely ! unusable. I can tell that they are entirely usable with V9-VC14. What was the issue ? >>> >>> I agree with Steffen. This week I have built httpd 2.4.19 (VC9 / VC11 / >>> VC14 & x86 / x64) using the .dsp files. I even commented that the >>> http2.dsp was missing a line. They are the easiest way to build httpd on >>> Windows. >> >> Does building 2.4.x from the .dsp files still work or not? >> >> AIUI (but my understanding of Windows is quite limited), Bill did not >> change any dsp file (but removing mod_lbmethod_rr which did not work), >> he "just" added some .mak and .dep files. >> Why would that break dsp files? > >
Re: 2.4.20 Change dsp: Win32-specific build files.
OK, thanks for clarifying Steffen. On Wed, Mar 23, 2016 at 12:28 PM, Steffenwrote: > Indeed wrowe did not change any .dsp files. and the changes from wrowe does > not break a .dsp build. > > My attention was just the statement of wrowe that .dsp files are not usable, > which is not true. > > > > On Wednesday 23/03/2016 at 12:20, Yann Ylavic wrote: > > On Wed, Mar 23, 2016 at 11:18 AM, Jan Ehrhardt wrote: > > Steffen in gmane.comp.apache.devel (Wed, 23 Mar 2016 09:15:45 +0100): > > Saw that wrowe did a change win make files in 2.4. branche. > > The comment says the the .dsp files are entirely ! unusable. > > I can tell that they are entirely usable with V9-VC14. What was the issue ? > > > I agree with Steffen. This week I have built httpd 2.4.19 (VC9 / VC11 / > VC14 & x86 / x64) using the .dsp files. I even commented that the > http2.dsp was missing a line. They are the easiest way to build httpd on > Windows. > > > Does building 2.4.x from the .dsp files still work or not? > > AIUI (but my understanding of Windows is quite limited), Bill did not > change any dsp file (but removing mod_lbmethod_rr which did not work), > he "just" added some .mak and .dep files. > Why would that break dsp files? > >
Re: 2.4.20 Change dsp: Win32-specific build files.
Indeed wrowe did not change any .dsp files. and the changes from wrowe does not break a .dsp build. My attention was just the statement of wrowe that .dsp files are not usable, which is not true. On Wednesday 23/03/2016 at 12:20, Yann Ylavic wrote: On Wed, Mar 23, 2016 at 11:18 AM, Jan Ehrhardtwrote: Steffen in gmane.comp.apache.devel (Wed, 23 Mar 2016 09:15:45 +0100): Saw that wrowe did a change win make files in 2.4. branche. The comment says the the .dsp files are entirely ! unusable. I can tell that they are entirely usable with V9-VC14. What was the issue ? I agree with Steffen. This week I have built httpd 2.4.19 (VC9 / VC11 / VC14 & x86 / x64) using the .dsp files. I even commented that the http2.dsp was missing a line. They are the easiest way to build httpd on Windows. Does building 2.4.x from the .dsp files still work or not? AIUI (but my understanding of Windows is quite limited), Bill did not change any dsp file (but removing mod_lbmethod_rr which did not work), he "just" added some .mak and .dep files. Why would that break dsp files?
Re: 2.4.20 Change dsp: Win32-specific build files.
On Wed, Mar 23, 2016 at 11:18 AM, Jan Ehrhardtwrote: > Steffen in gmane.comp.apache.devel (Wed, 23 Mar 2016 09:15:45 +0100): >>Saw that wrowe did a change win make files in 2.4. branche. >> >>The comment says the the .dsp files are entirely ! unusable. >> >>I can tell that they are entirely usable with V9-VC14. What was the issue ? > > I agree with Steffen. This week I have built httpd 2.4.19 (VC9 / VC11 / > VC14 & x86 / x64) using the .dsp files. I even commented that the > http2.dsp was missing a line. They are the easiest way to build httpd on > Windows. Does building 2.4.x from the .dsp files still work or not? AIUI (but my understanding of Windows is quite limited), Bill did not change any dsp file (but removing mod_lbmethod_rr which did not work), he "just" added some .mak and .dep files. Why would that break dsp files?
Re: 2.4.20 Change dsp: Win32-specific build files.
Agreed! wtf?! > On Mar 23, 2016, at 6:18 AM, Jan Ehrhardtwrote: > > Steffen in gmane.comp.apache.devel (Wed, 23 Mar 2016 09:15:45 +0100): >> Saw that wrowe did a change win make files in 2.4. branche. >> >> The comment says the the .dsp files are entirely ! unusable. >> >> I can tell that they are entirely usable with V9-VC14. What was the issue ? > > I agree with Steffen. This week I have built httpd 2.4.19 (VC9 / VC11 / > VC14 & x86 / x64) using the .dsp files. I even commented that the > http2.dsp was missing a line. They are the easiest way to build httpd on > Windows. > > Jan >
Re: 2.4.20 Change dsp: Win32-specific build files.
Steffen in gmane.comp.apache.devel (Wed, 23 Mar 2016 09:15:45 +0100): >Saw that wrowe did a change win make files in 2.4. branche. > >The comment says the the .dsp files are entirely ! unusable. > >I can tell that they are entirely usable with V9-VC14. What was the issue ? I agree with Steffen. This week I have built httpd 2.4.19 (VC9 / VC11 / VC14 & x86 / x64) using the .dsp files. I even commented that the http2.dsp was missing a line. They are the easiest way to build httpd on Windows. Jan