Re: [libmicrohttpd] Small upgrade for MHD home page

[silvioprog]

Oops, damn Gmail Ctrl+Enter! :-D

I meant:

Very good, I'll be happy to send the Windows binaries to the MHD community! :-)

After that I need to learn how to get a GnuPG key to sign the package, but I can do it these days.

And I have a small problem with Keep-Alive, but I need to more tests to check if there is something wrong in my code or some bug in MHD on Windows. If there is really a bug, I'll open a new issue here in the group.

Very good, I'll be happy to send the Windows binaries doe the MHD community! :-)

After that I need to learn how to get a GnuPG key to sign the package, but I can do it these days.

And I have a small problem with Keep-Alive, but I need to more tests to check if it is something wrong in my code or some bug in MHD on Windows. If it is really a bug, I'll open a new issue here in the group.

I'm happy to update the link if you (or anybody else) wants to put up a
binary. Note that you should sign it with *your* GnuPG key, I do not
sign binaries created by other people.

On 11/15/2015 06:42 PM, silvioprog wrote:
> Hm... about Windows package, the problem is just to keep an old version on
> home page, because there is the first place that an user find the lib, and
> this very old version miss a lot of important fixes. :-/
>
> I have two sugestions to distribute the Windows package on home page:
>
> 1. keep only the latest compiled version (I can help you building the
> binaries);
> 2. keep only the sources of the latest version (eg
> libmicrohttpd-0.9.46.zip).
>
> I'm expecting a better market to the lib. :-)
>
> On Fri, Nov 13, 2015 at 4:31 AM, Christian Grothoff <address@hidden>
> wrote:
>
>> Hi!
>>
>> I've bumped the source link to actually match the last release.
>> I don't build the W32 binary, so I cannot help it being outdated.
>>
>> Also, unlike NodeJS [1] our source build is not insane, and if you're
>> using MHD and you cannot build from source, it won't be of much use to
>> you. And for end-users, the respective operating system distribution
>> package manager should provide binaries anyway. As most end-users
>> wouldn't know how to check signatures on downloaded binaries, that's
>> also the only way to get them (relatively, see [2]) secure binaries.
>>
>> (That doesn't matter for W32, that's a lost cause anyway.)
>>
>>
>> Happy hacking!
>>
>> Christian
>>
>> [1]
>>
>> http://dthompson.us/reproducible-development-environments-with-gnu-guix.html
>> [2] https://gnunet.org/guix2015video
>
>