Re: [users@httpd] Re: "Official" apache win32 binaries for 2.2.23

2013-02-05 Thread Tom Evans
On Sat, Feb 2, 2013 at 9:24 AM, Michiel Beijen wrote: > Op 2 feb. 2013 02:16 schreef "Good Guy" het volgende: > I don't >> mind doing it but whenever I try do build it in VS2010, I always get errors >> and so I gave up. even VS 2012 is out now and it is a very good package to >> create fast bina

Re: [users@httpd] Re: "Official" apache win32 binaries for 2.2.23

2013-02-02 Thread Michiel Beijen
Op 2 feb. 2013 12:57 schreef "Nick Kew" het volgende: > When you install a binary through apt, pkg, yum, or any of those systems, > what you are installing is a third-party build from some distributor who is > expert in the particular system you're installing on. Grabbing a windows > binary from

Re: [users@httpd] Re: "Official" apache win32 binaries for 2.2.23

2013-02-02 Thread Nick Kew
On 2 Feb 2013, at 09:24, Michiel Beijen wrote: > Still, it would be nice if Apache foundation would provide a binary build, or > link to any of these sites directly. On Linux, most people tend to apt-get or > yum install their binaries, on Windows there is no such solution. To do that we'd nee

Re: [users@httpd] Re: "Official" apache win32 binaries for 2.2.23

2013-02-02 Thread Michiel Beijen
Op 2 feb. 2013 02:16 schreef "Good Guy" het volgende: > > I had always believed that Apache Foundation had committed "harakiri" in not providing the Win32/Win64 binaries because they are very popular for developers of CMS packages. Now you have given us the true reason of why!. > > Now whoever wa

[users@httpd] Re: "Official" apache win32 binaries for 2.2.23

2013-02-01 Thread Good Guy
I had always believed that Apache Foundation had committed "harakiri" in not providing the Win32/Win64 binaries because they are very popular for developers of CMS packages. Now you have given us the true reason of why!. Now whoever was doing it, can he not post a final document containing