On Thu, Nov 14, 2013 at 9:06 AM, STF <laps...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On 14 November 2013 14:42, Jeff Trawick <traw...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> On Thu, Nov 14, 2013 at 8:03 AM, STF <laps...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> Ah OK. Well, even without the Force of Jedi, I can already foresee a >>> difficult path before me if I'm to compile my own binary for Windows ... >>> >>> Most of all, by the absence of confirmation, I think it's just not >>> possible to compile with Visual Studio *Express*. Too bad... >>> >>> So, is the support for Windows officially dead? >>> >> >> Don't jump to conclusions on either matter... >> >> Maybe you're just the person to try the freely available >> SDKs/command-line compilers from Microsoft and see what impediments, if >> any, you encounter and document any workarounds or at least engage the >> development community on issues you don't know how to resolve. Or maybe >> someone else will do it and share their experiences. >> > > I'm not looking for some "IT adventure" if that's what you mean. I have a > job and I don't have spare time to "explore unknown territories" lol I > really want to use Apache httpd in windows at the latest version if > possible. >
That's fine. For many things I do the "IT adventure" and for many others I just want the darn thing to work. > > If I need to buy Visual Studio 201x to compile Apache, I'd better pay for > some commercial alternative :D > I don't think you do, but I haven't had time to try the free MS tools in a long time. > > >> Nobody has posted httpd binaries for Windows to httpd.apache.org in >> quite a while, and they were never "official" anyway, whatever that means. >> > > Not true. Cf: > http://wiki.apache.org/httpd/FAQ#Why_isn.27t_there_a_binary_for_my_platform.3F > Binaries for Windows are official stuffs. Or if you like, they are *de > facto* official stuff provided by Apache. > We'll have to agree to disagree on that. Binaries are contributed (or not based on the whims of individual developers). They are not official, they are not vetted, nobody else tests or even looks at them before they are put on the site. > > >> Windows is of course supported in the source, and as someone else >> pointed out there are non-ASF providers of binaries for Windows. >> > > But the lack of specific source for Windows in official FTP server make us > think otherwise. > Hmmm... I build httpd 2.4.x for Windows from the .tar.gz or .tar.bz2, but I see the discrepancy. (httpd 2.2.25 has a special "-win32-src.zip" distribution but httpd 2.4.6 does not.) There's an httpd 2.4.x release soon; hopefully we can straighten out the confusion. > > Don't take me wrong. Apache has the freedom to NOT support Windows. It's > their choice and we should respect it. *I* will respect it if that's the > case. I'm not angry nor sad. But I'd rather like a *clear-cut* > situation/announcement instead of an ambiguous one. > Exactly what do you want? I'm a core httpd developer, I put in a lot of time on the Windows side and know what I'm talking about, and I tell you Windows is supported. You want more (more than is provided for Linux) but that doesn't mean it isn't supported. -- Born in Roswell... married an alien... http://emptyhammock.com/
