At 08:46 AM 5/11/2005, Branko Čibej wrote: >>All in all - comments? >How about moving away from MSVC 6 to (say) VC.Net 2003, while we're at it? >It's time, to say the least.
Not for 1.3 or 2.0 httpd - you lose some measure of binary compatibility. We can jump through hoops to continue to use the msvcrt.dll but it's suboptimal. To pick up msvcr70.dll will cause some measure of pain. I'm willing to consider moving to Visual C 7 for binary builds of httpd-2.1+ if enough of the community is behind it. For that matter, perhaps its time to drop Win9x support from httpd-2.1+ (?) If your thought is no - lots of people still use 9x - then also consider that lots of people are quite happy with their VC 5 or 6 and it just continues to work for them. Here's an example of the issue; http://mail.gnome.org/archives/dia-list/2003-March/msg00141.html Nothing stops YOU today from using VC7, in fact VisualStudio will gladly parse the .dsp files into .vcproc's, .dsw into .sln. The question, rather, is what clib and compiler to use to create the binary distributions - and right now, We obviously want users to be able to elect /GS compilation under VC7 for stack guard sentinels. If the open source community tends to push back on Microsoft's newest compilers, it's simply because their forced treadmill is the anathema of inclusiveness. At 10:45 AM 5/11/2005, Branko Čibej wrote: >99% of the work of moving from MSVC6 to any flavour of VC.Net is in converting >the project files. So it doesn't matter if the target is 2003 or 2005. That would be 1% of the work. Visual Studio.NET does that work for you. Bill --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
