Build for win32 without VC++?

I had originally posted this on comp.infosystems.www.server.ms-windows
but see that this group has more traffic.

Has anybody ever tried (not to mention succeeded!) to build a version of
Apache for Win32 (definitely version 2) using FOSS tools and completely
bypassing MS Visual Studio? I don't mean for Cygwin, but native Win32?

Maybe I am being a bit paranoid here, but I don't want to use Cygwin and
add an extra layer of interface. On the face of it, this makes it to me
less secure, more avenues for attack by intruders. Plus efficiency
suffers, IMHO.

Any comments on this being wrong most readily accepted.

It irritates me that I have to spend hundreds of $ to build a FOSS tool.

Also, I want SSL/HTTPS capability and it seems, with the latest "caution"
(I mean, come on, RSA's patent lapsed in the year 2000, the US government
relaxed its encryption export laws, the code is distributed with the SSL
source) of the Apache developers, that the only way to get this on Win32
is to either build it with MS VC++ or to download prebuilt versions from
someone I don't know.

Plus, if I can build Apache from source, I can keep up with source code
security updates like the one for 2.0.51.

Up to now, I have gotten the apr component to build using straight GCC
after converting the .DSW and .DSP files into makefiles. Running into
some brick walls, though.

If someone else has solved all of this and has published it on the Web, a
URL would be most appreciated. If not, I'll slog along and publish it
myself when I get a web site up.

Any other comments most appreciated.

If you don't want to use MS Visual Studio because you are anti-Microsoft I
do not have any suggestion for you. However, if you are looking for
something that is free, you can download the Visual C++ Toolkit from
Microsoft's website. The readme states:

Use the free Visual C++ Toolkit to build your ISO C++ Standard code, to
evaluate new compiler features, and to get a feel for some of the
capabilities included with Visual Studio .NET 2003. The tools and
libraries included with the Toolkit are a subset of the features and
capabilities of Visual Studio .NET 2003 Professional. Buy Visual Studio
..NET 2003 Professional and get a full Integrated Development Environment
(IDE), an award-winning debugger, additional C++ libraries including ATL and
MFC, and much more.

I think this would be enough to build Apache.

I have also seen stripped down versions of Visual Studio included on the CD
in the back of many C++ books. You can often find these books still with
the CD for very little cost at many computer swaps meets. I think that they
are capable of building Apache as well.

--Brian K. White

<Spammers@AreLowLifes.com-INVALID-MUNGED> wrote in message
news:cj3mav$jd6$1@news2.netvision.net.il...
>
> I had originally posted this on comp.infosystems.www.server.ms-windows
> but see that this group has more traffic.
>
> Has anybody ever tried (not to mention succeeded!) to build a version of
> Apache for Win32 (definitely version 2) using FOSS tools and completely
> bypassing MS Visual Studio? I don't mean for Cygwin, but native Win32?
>
> Maybe I am being a bit paranoid here, but I don't want to use Cygwin and
> add an extra layer of interface. On the face of it, this makes it to me
> less secure, more avenues for attack by intruders. Plus efficiency
> suffers, IMHO.
>
> Any comments on this being wrong most readily accepted.
>
> It irritates me that I have to spend hundreds of $ to build a FOSS tool.
>
> Also, I want SSL/HTTPS capability and it seems, with the latest "caution"
> (I mean, come on, RSA's patent lapsed in the year 2000, the US government
> relaxed its encryption export laws, the code is distributed with the SSL
> source) of the Apache developers, that the only way to get this on Win32
> is to either build it with MS VC++ or to download prebuilt versions from
> someone I don't know.
>
> Plus, if I can build Apache from source, I can keep up with source code
> security updates like the one for 2.0.51.
>
> Up to now, I have gotten the apr component to build using straight GCC
> after converting the .DSW and .DSP files into makefiles. Running into
> some brick walls, though.
>
> If someone else has solved all of this and has published it on the Web, a
> URL would be most appreciated. If not, I'll slog along and publish it
> myself when I get a web site up.
>
> Any other comments most appreciated.