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
Received on 2010-03-03 13:28:36 CET