From: Eli Green <eli.green@...>
Date: 2001-10-02T14:37:17+09:00
Subject: [ruby-talk:21921] Re: Let's work on Windows support

from Phil Tomson on 2001-10-02 at 11:31:04:
> In article <20011001192708.A89625@codedogs.ca>,
> Eli Green  <eli.green@codedogs.ca> wrote:
> >from Sean Chittenden on 2001-10-02 at 01:32:16:
> >
> >APR isn't in a state where it's recommended for use as a shared library yet,
> >so static linking would be the way to go for the time being. So while we'd be
> >adding a dependency to APR, we'd be getting rid of the dependency of Cygwin,
> >and it could be bundled as one InstallShield executable.
> >
> 
> Would giving up cygwin for APR just be swapping for another set of 
> problems?

Yes. However, we'd be swapping a band-aid solution (I've never spoken to
anybody who has been 100% satisfied with Cygwin) for something that is likely
to be much more robust and well-tested. As I just stated in my e-mail to Mr.
Chittenden, Apache 2.0 is already serving www.apache.org, and is likely to see
VERY heavy use and testing. I personally like the idea. However, I have no
evidence that APR is ACTUALLY better than Cygwin, and I'm often wrong about
things. :)

> Phil