Re: Win32 binary distributions 2.1.9-beta and onwards

["William A. Rowe, Jr." <wr...@rowe-clan.net>]

On 2005.11.10 William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
> Question;
> 
> I'm looking for input what version of visual c++ we should build apr 1.x
> and httpd 2.1.x and onwards with.  As most are aware, discrepancies in
> the clib mean that mismatched posix open()/close(), malloc()/free() can
> all cause serious problems, so a single version is vastly preferable.
> 
> Open to comments...

I counted Nick concerned that moving from VC6 could cause breakage, and he 
distributes loadable binaries.  These are not really a concern until you
cross the evil threshold of using apr_os_xxx_get() to obtain resources which
you then attempt to free in the clib, and his modules don't do that... but
the language binding modules sure do...

Point was raised by Randy Kobes that Activestate Perl was bound VC6, but
for 5.8.x, and would probably change next bump (5.10, 6.0 or whatever.)

Point was raised by me that Activestate Python 2.4 is bound VC2003.

Colm observed VS2005 will have at least some free version or be free for
a limited period of time, as kudos for that flavor.  (It's now released.)

I have 6.0, 2000/.NET, 2003, and 2005 sitting here, and will build whichever
flavor is deemed 'appropriate'.

If nobody speaks up, I'm building 'same old, same old' under MSVCRT.

Bill

Re: Win32 binary distributions 2.1.9-beta and onwards

[Nick Kew <ni...@webthing.com>]

On Thursday 01 December 2005 22:40, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
> On 2005.11.10 William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
> > Question;
> >
> > I'm looking for input what version of visual c++ we should build apr 1.x
> > and httpd 2.1.x and onwards with.  As most are aware, discrepancies in
> > the clib mean that mismatched posix open()/close(), malloc()/free() can
> > all cause serious problems, so a single version is vastly preferable.
> >
> > Open to comments...

Speaking as one of the people who raised concerns:-

> I counted Nick concerned that moving from VC6 could cause breakage, and he
> distributes loadable binaries.  These are not really a concern until you
> cross the evil threshold of using apr_os_xxx_get() to obtain resources
> which you then attempt to free in the clib, and his modules don't do
> that... but the language binding modules sure do...

Yes, I think I was happy with your explanation, in principle at least.
I'll download the 2.2.0 MSI when available, and try building against it.
The main concern is mod_proxy_html, as that's the really popular one.

> If nobody speaks up, I'm building 'same old, same old' under MSVCRT.

I think, do it as you think best - you're the expert.  If things don't work 
here, I'll be back begging your advice, but I don't use apr_os_xxx_get().

-- 
Nick Kew

Re: Win32 binary distributions 2.1.9-beta and onwards

[Steffen <in...@apachelounge.com>]

> Ok, on further consideration, if Joe casual user has the opportunity to 
> open
> up the project in their free edition of VisualStudio 2005, and learn 
> Apache,
> perhaps contribute back, I believe *we* win, and the user wins.

Agree  *you* win, and we user wins. And I try to contribute back.
I used VisualStudio 2005 and had not an issue with building 2.2

Steffen

Ps. Also compiled some modules, see http://www.apachelounge.com/download/



----- Original Message ----- 
From: "William A. Rowe, Jr." <wr...@rowe-clan.net>
To: <de...@httpd.apache.org>
Sent: Friday, December 02, 2005 12:46 AM
Subject: Re: Win32 binary distributions 2.1.9-beta and onwards


> William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
>> Colm MacCarthaigh wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, Dec 01, 2005 at 04:40:25PM -0600, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
>>>
>>>> I have 6.0, 2000/.NET, 2003, and 2005 sitting here, and will build 
>>>> whichever
>>>> flavor is deemed 'appropriate'.
>>>>
>>>> If nobody speaks up, I'm building 'same old, same old' under MSVCRT.
>>>
>>> I think that's appropriate, 2005 is a bit of a battle right now. Getting
>>> openssl to compile with 2005 is a real nightmare (more than usual).
>>
>> If this too shall pass, I'm in favor of 'doing it right' for the long 
>> term,
>> 2.2 will be here a while.  Raising some questions beyond the httpd 
>> community
>> with an eye to the official binary sometime early next week, prior to 
>> hackathon.
>
> Ok, on further consideration, if Joe casual user has the opportunity to 
> open
> up the project in their free edition of VisualStudio 2005, and learn 
> Apache,
> perhaps contribute back, I believe *we* win, and the user wins.
>
> That said, I'm inquiring of the ActiveState staff about their tools, where 
> are
> they going to be in the next month or few?  Not endorsing them, but they 
> are
> one of several valid solutions.
>
> We push our module authors to whatever we build to, if they are doing 
> anything
> fancy with freeing resources in a different context than they were 
> allocated
> (either passing off resource ownership to us from their module, or 
> surrendering
> our ownership to their module as a raw resource.)  APR makes almost all of 
> these
> a no-op, and in fact mod_aspdotnet uses VC 2000, soon to be 2005, because 
> it
> never trades ownership of resources this way.
>
> But language blending, al la mod_python or mod_perl, is an entirely 
> different
> beast, these things will be passed back and forth, and will cause hassles. 
> So
> httpd is somewhat dependent upon other organizations which distribute 
> win32
> ported languages compiled in MSVC.
>
> As far as OpenSSL etc, nothing says those can't be patched and we are up 
> and
> running again quickly, in fact they'd broken their shared build on HPUX 
> and
> that's where I'm currently spending my patience.  After that, proposing 
> the
> fix for VS2005 should be a no-brainer ;-)
>
> Bill
>
>
> 

Re: Win32 binary distributions 2.1.9-beta and onwards

["William A. Rowe, Jr." <wr...@rowe-clan.net>]

William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
> Colm MacCarthaigh wrote:
> 
>> On Thu, Dec 01, 2005 at 04:40:25PM -0600, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
>>
>>> I have 6.0, 2000/.NET, 2003, and 2005 sitting here, and will build 
>>> whichever
>>> flavor is deemed 'appropriate'.
>>>
>>> If nobody speaks up, I'm building 'same old, same old' under MSVCRT.
>>
>> I think that's appropriate, 2005 is a bit of a battle right now. Getting
>> openssl to compile with 2005 is a real nightmare (more than usual).
> 
> If this too shall pass, I'm in favor of 'doing it right' for the long term,
> 2.2 will be here a while.  Raising some questions beyond the httpd 
> community
> with an eye to the official binary sometime early next week, prior to 
> hackathon.

Ok, on further consideration, if Joe casual user has the opportunity to open
up the project in their free edition of VisualStudio 2005, and learn Apache,
perhaps contribute back, I believe *we* win, and the user wins.

That said, I'm inquiring of the ActiveState staff about their tools, where are
they going to be in the next month or few?  Not endorsing them, but they are
one of several valid solutions.

We push our module authors to whatever we build to, if they are doing anything
fancy with freeing resources in a different context than they were allocated
(either passing off resource ownership to us from their module, or surrendering
our ownership to their module as a raw resource.)  APR makes almost all of these
a no-op, and in fact mod_aspdotnet uses VC 2000, soon to be 2005, because it
never trades ownership of resources this way.

But language blending, al la mod_python or mod_perl, is an entirely different
beast, these things will be passed back and forth, and will cause hassles.  So
httpd is somewhat dependent upon other organizations which distribute win32
ported languages compiled in MSVC.

As far as OpenSSL etc, nothing says those can't be patched and we are up and
running again quickly, in fact they'd broken their shared build on HPUX and
that's where I'm currently spending my patience.  After that, proposing the
fix for VS2005 should be a no-brainer ;-)

Bill

Re: Win32 binary distributions 2.1.9-beta and onwards

["William A. Rowe, Jr." <wr...@rowe-clan.net>]

Colm MacCarthaigh wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 01, 2005 at 04:40:25PM -0600, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
> 
>>I have 6.0, 2000/.NET, 2003, and 2005 sitting here, and will build whichever
>>flavor is deemed 'appropriate'.
>>
>>If nobody speaks up, I'm building 'same old, same old' under MSVCRT.
> 
> I think that's appropriate, 2005 is a bit of a battle right now. Getting
> openssl to compile with 2005 is a real nightmare (more than usual).

If this too shall pass, I'm in favor of 'doing it right' for the long term,
2.2 will be here a while.  Raising some questions beyond the httpd community
with an eye to the official binary sometime early next week, prior to hackathon.

Bill

Re: Win32 binary distributions 2.1.9-beta and onwards

[Colm MacCarthaigh <co...@stdlib.net>]

On Thu, Dec 01, 2005 at 04:40:25PM -0600, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
> I have 6.0, 2000/.NET, 2003, and 2005 sitting here, and will build whichever
> flavor is deemed 'appropriate'.
> 
> If nobody speaks up, I'm building 'same old, same old' under MSVCRT.

I think that's appropriate, 2005 is a bit of a battle right now. Getting
openssl to compile with 2005 is a real nightmare (more than usual).

-- 
Colm MacCárthaigh                        Public Key: colm+pgp@stdlib.net