No Apache httpd for Windows?

[Mark Phippard <ma...@gmail.com>]

I know many of you are part of the httpd project, and I am not, so asking here.

With the current Apache 2.2.x and 2.4.x there are no more Windows
downloads available.  Does anyone know why?  I do not see anything on
the mailing lists, but maybe I am just missing it.

I can understand that maybe whoever was building the Win32 binaries
stopped, or did not have time, but I am actually talking about the
source code.  There is no Win32 zip file as there always has been in
the past.  And there are no notes that say you should use the Unix tar
to build.  I was under the impression in the past, that the process of
producing the Windows source zip file produced some extra content that
was needed to do a build.  That said, the docs do not specifically say
anything about what source to download.

Did they stop posting the Windows zip file because it just is not
needed, or is something going on?  I am dealing with some weirdness
that only happens on Windows, and did not happen with 2.2.22, so want
to be sure it is not because I am building with the wrong source.

-- 
Thanks

Mark Phippard
http://markphip.blogspot.com/

Re: No Apache httpd for Windows?

[Branko Čibej <br...@wandisco.com>]

On 09.11.2012 19:50, Mark Phippard wrote:
> That is what I expected. I just figured the project would state this
> somewhere. The files are still listed as Unix tarballs which makes it
> sound like it is meant to build on Unix. 

It's kind of  an informal policy here at the ASF that "source release"
means "all source needed to build on all supported platforms, except
third-party dependencies". :)

Which reminds me that we should consider stopping releasing a separate
Windows zip file, with different contents and different line endings
ourselves. If it's only an issue of unzip being more common on windows
than tar+gunzip, then we can do the same as with tar.gz and tar.bz2 --
just package the same tree in a different archive format.

-- Brane

-- 
Branko Čibej
Director of Subversion | WANdisco | www.wandisco.com

Re: No Apache httpd for Windows?

[Mark Phippard <ma...@gmail.com>]

On Fri, Nov 9, 2012 at 1:41 PM, Branko Čibej <br...@wandisco.com> wrote:

> Producing that Windows zip file, and the build scripts within, and
> generally maintaining the Windows build env was also a one-man effort.
>
>> Did they stop posting the Windows zip file because it just is not
>> needed, or is something going on?
>
> At this point I have to point out that, strictly speaking, this is kind
> of the wrong list to ask those questions. :)

I know, but I just figured releasing the source archives in an
open-source project is kind of an important thing.  So I figured it
must have been discussed somewhere and someone could point me to it.
When the release was posted for signatures, it was implied they were
coming soon:

http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/httpd-dev/201208.mbox/%3C5033E08F.6070301%40rowe-clan.net%3E

> The only difference between the Unix and Windows tarballs was the build
> scripts and the line endings. With the (finally) demise of MSVC 6, which
> required CRLF in .dsp and .dsw files, line endings are definitely no
> longer an issue.

That is what I expected.  I just figured the project would state this
somewhere.  The files are still listed as Unix tarballs which makes it
sound like it is meant to build on Unix.

-- 
Thanks

Mark Phippard
http://markphip.blogspot.com/

Re: No Apache httpd for Windows?

[Branko Čibej <br...@wandisco.com>]

On 09.11.2012 16:10, Mark Phippard wrote:
> I know many of you are part of the httpd project, and I am not, so asking here.
>
> With the current Apache 2.2.x and 2.4.x there are no more Windows
> downloads available.  Does anyone know why?  I do not see anything on
> the mailing lists, but maybe I am just missing it.

I expect wrowe just got tired of/ran out of time for building the
Windows httpd binaries. That was a one-man-band volunteer effort, and
since binaries aren't blessed release artefacts anyway, there's little
chance of someone else stepping up.

> I can understand that maybe whoever was building the Win32 binaries
> stopped, or did not have time, but I am actually talking about the
> source code.  There is no Win32 zip file as there always has been in
> the past.  And there are no notes that say you should use the Unix tar
> to build.  I was under the impression in the past, that the process of
> producing the Windows source zip file produced some extra content that
> was needed to do a build.  That said, the docs do not specifically say
> anything about what source to download.

Producing that Windows zip file, and the build scripts within, and
generally maintaining the Windows build env was also a one-man effort.

> Did they stop posting the Windows zip file because it just is not
> needed, or is something going on?

At this point I have to point out that, strictly speaking, this is kind
of the wrong list to ask those questions. :)

> I am dealing with some weirdness
> that only happens on Windows, and did not happen with 2.2.22, so want
> to be sure it is not because I am building with the wrong source.

The only difference between the Unix and Windows tarballs was the build
scripts and the line endings. With the (finally) demise of MSVC 6, which
required CRLF in .dsp and .dsw files, line endings are definitely no
longer an issue.

-- Brane

-- 
Branko Čibej
Director of Subversion | WANdisco | www.wandisco.com

Re: No Apache httpd for Windows?

[Mario Brandt <jb...@gmail.com>]

Hi Mark,
on www.apachehaus.com there are zips for 2.2.x and 2.4.x

Cheers
Mario