I know there are great people out there building great Win32 Apache 2.2.x binaries, but the problem is that some IT managers, like mine, want a stable Win32 Apache from the Apache Software Foundation. So we will continue with 2.0.55 until the ASF releases a stable Win32 binary. I would guess that others are in the same situation. This isn't pissing and moaning, this is life in our IT world. I'm content to wait, Apache 2.0.55 does everything our agency needs to do. Gary T. Schultz IT Administrator Wisconsin Department of Commerce 608-266-1283 gschultz@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx -----Original Message----- From: William A. Rowe, Jr. [mailto:wrowe@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] Sent: Monday, May 01, 2006 6:50 AM To: users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Subject: Re: [users@httpd] Apache HTTP Server 2.2.2 Released Yevgen Borodin wrote: > Why couldn't there be a stable 2.2.2 Win32 Apache release? > So tired of random bugs in 2.0.55... :( Because Apache HTTP Server is a source code development project. We don't exist to help users of any specific platform. Binaries are provided at the convenience of a contributor, if at all. Why on earth would Win32 merit a comment or priority over, say, a Solaris pkg or a Linux rpm? If you want random bugs, try a build of 2.2.0, that should send you screaming back to 2.0.40. Read the announce again. Did it say there *ISN'T*? Or rather, that there would not be? Or did it say anything at all about it? I've said it time and time again, 2.2.2 will be the first Win32 binary distribution to hit the httpd download site from -me-. Others have rolled binaries of 2.2.0 you can obtain. The biggest pissing and moaning, more than 2.2.foo, was for win32-x86-ssl.msi. Guess what? The ASF has already finished the notification process of 0.9.7 and our mod_ssl, so there ya go. For binary compat, with all the folks that already use mod_ssl, in 2.0 they used 0.9.7 forever. So that's what it is. In the interim, shaking out the cobwebs from my december efforts to get 2.2 installer working, and think that it's there. I'm checking documentation to see if openssl 0.9.8 notification has to be made, or if it's already done. It makes no sense to have 2.2 bundled with the old 0.9.7 - we're in 2006 already, and 0.9.8 shipped within weeks of 2.2.0. So why use anything but? Even if it didn't have a bit more installation testing and comprehensive rewrite of the README page, along with this openssl notification question ... I'm just as tempted to leave this sit another few days, seeing that it took a whopping three hours for folks to start pissing and moaning. Is it missing because notification process isn't finished? Missing because of the README update for wldap32.dll dependencies? Missing because of the major refactoring of the config files? Or missing because a few whiners bit the hand that feeds them? Only one will ever know. We voulenteer to this effort for fun. If you want to treat the voulenteers as your paid staff, you can damn well pay them. Lots of folks know how to build win32 binaries for you and would be happy to take your check. Since 2.2 dropped and the complaints started, several HTTP'ers have even suggested that binaries should be dropped, altogether, and leave folks to their own devices or OS vendor to provide them the binaries. Hopefully for you that isn't what happens. Bill --------------------------------------------------------------------- The official User-To-User support forum of the Apache HTTP Server Project. See <URL:http://httpd.apache.org/userslist.html> for more info. To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx " from the digest: users-digest-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx --------------------------------------------------------------------- The official User-To-User support forum of the Apache HTTP Server Project. See <URL:http://httpd.apache.org/userslist.html> for more info. To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx " from the digest: users-digest-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
|