Re: [Bug-wget] remove windows subdirectory

[Micah Cowan]

On 06/14/2010 07:59 AM, Christopher G. Lewis wrote:
> The addition of Automake and gnulib were what broke the Windows native
> build.  There was no consideration to keeping the Windows build in sync,

Untrue. I pointed out the changes when we made them, and noted that
Windows would have some work to do before it would work again because of
them. This was well over a year before the 1.12 release, but no one did
the work.

These changes made my job as maintainer much, much easier; I consider
them to have been necessary. It was not especially difficult to get
Windows support in via MinGW (which as we've already pointed out, builds
native binaries, no MinGW environment necessary to work); I'd already
gotten Windows support working on my own, since no one else was working
on it, before the 1.12 release, but mistakenly had failed to import the
changes as I thought I had; I merged them in directly after. They WERE
missing OpenSSL support (along with other more minor flaws), which is of
course important, but I had run out of time at that point.

> and I wasn't able to keep up with the changes that Micah was doing to
> the basic build process - when questioned, "we'll fix it later" was all
> I was hearing.

"We'll fix it later" was an answer to the general public, and not to you
specifically, and came about because I hadn't gotten responses from you
about getting it in shape for Windows, in a significant period of time
(at least a month before I finally just made the release for Unix).

> Around the same time, it was discovered that NTLM authentication only
> worked with NTLMv1 not NTLMv2 and I spend a couple of weeks
> (unsuccessfully) trying to get that working.  

Other folks were working on that too. Tony Lewis had something working,
can't remember if we put it in, or if we were waiting on more thorough
testing work (to verify it still worked properly with NTLMv2). But I
wouldn't have held up a release for that, since not having NTLMv2
support wouldn't have left us any worse off. It looked great, to my
eyes, so if it's not in there, it should be, and should get testing
(mostly for NTLMv1; it had already been tested against NTLMv2).

-- 
Micah J. Cowan
http://micah.cowan.name/