Concerning Re: Tigris binary packages for Wind Olivier Sannier wrote on 3 Mar 2010, 11:27, at least in part:
> Troy Simpson wrote: > > For base-level support, we narrowed that down to apache 2.2x. Do we really > > need to support all the python builds? They were a great service from D.J. > > Heap, but now that we don't have that, do we really need to ditch all > > windows builds? What we could look at is a standard base-level windows > > build that most people use. Personally, I just use a windows client, as do > > many users - I don't even use the apache bindings, nor do many windows > > users. We could leave specialised builds to teams who want to support them > > which in theory would make the job at this end much easier. > > > Well, I, for one, would need the Apache 2.2 bindings but I do not need > the Python bindings at all, which I suspect most users don't either. > So basic binaries with 2.2 support would be perfect for starters Seconded. Apache 2.2 is a must, language bindings are not needed here, nor OpenSSL. But I would highly prefer to continue with BDB repository (which I understand from previous postings is one of the harder things of the complex build process unfortunately). JH --------------------------------------- Freedom quote: Live free or die. -- New Hampshire State Motto