Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help@cygwin.com; run by ezmlm List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: cygwin-owner@cygwin.com Mail-Followup-To: cygwin@cygwin.com Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin@cygwin.com To: cygwin@cygwin.com From: Andrew DeFaria Subject: Re: Looking for new apache maintainer Date: Thu, 27 May 2004 07:18:42 -0700 Lines: 19 Message-ID: References: <20040525234836.GA2243@coe.bosbc.com> <40B53400.668ECCEF@dessent.net> <000b01c443cb$c6c0e950$78d96f83@robinson.cam.ac.uk> <40B5B751.9EB8E456@dessent.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: h-67-102-25-114.lsanca54.covad.net User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 0.6 (Windows/20040502) In-Reply-To: <40B5B751.9EB8E456@dessent.net> Brian Dessent wrote: > I hadn't planned to package 2.x because its native win32 version would > be significantly faster with a thread MPM than a Cygwin port. But I > suppose a Cygwin version would be useful if you wanted to test or > develop things that are destined for a 2.x/Unix machine. I also don't > know what's involved with compiling 2.x for Cygwin. Maybe after 1.x > and the modules are out... My understanding is that the Cygwin port of Apache 1.x is also significantly slower than the native Apache 1.x but this didn't stop people from wanting a Cygwin version of 1.x. Or is there something in 2.x (this thread MPM thing) that would make a Cygwin port of Apache 2.x much, much slower than the native one? BTW: Thanks for volunteering for this. Does this mean that a Cygwin version of mod_php would be working again? -- Jack Kevorkian for White House physician. -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/