Lighttpd

lighttpd 1.4.70 and later can build natively on _WIN32.

Cygwin is a useful platform, but is different than native _WIN32.

lighttpd is already packaged and distributed with Cygwin, so I recommend those looking for a lighttpd installation package use the cygwin lighttpd package, which is maintained by a lighttpd developer (me).

https://cygwin.com/cygwin/packages/summary/lighttpd.html

Cygwin also provides additional lighttpd packages (also maintained by a lighttpd developer (me)) for modules with additional dependencies.

https://cygwin.com/cgi-bin2/package-grep.cgi?grep=lighttpd

To the best of my knowledge, @tevkar has not reached out to lighttpd developers before this post, and I have no idea what is in the binary downloadable from that site. That binary is also not signed with the GPG key I use to sign lighttpd releases, so caveat emptor if you download a binary package linked from a message board instead of using official lighttpd releases from established distributions, e.g. installed from Cygwin setup.exe.

Edit:
Another reason not to trust @tevkar is that this individual does not understand open source licensing. lighttpd is released under the BSD-3-Clause licence, and @tevkar is not permitted to relicense lighttpd source code under a different license that is incompatible because it does not maintain the requirements of the BSD-3-Clause license.

Hi,

That was very harsh. Just a quick look at our website would convince you not to come up with accusations you are rolling here. Fair enough, we withdraw our announcement. Shame on you!

Kind regards

Some additional comments for non-sense accusations from a very sensitive maintainer:

- We sign our packages with our GPG key, not yours. Why should we ?

- It is you on the thin ice regarding licensing: We are not relicensing your source code, we package just binaries in a convenient package. You don't need to install the whole Cygwin package.

- We didn't know that lighttpd could be compiled natively nor it was available as a Cygwin package. We couldn't find that information at web sites we visit.

Anyway, we withdraw package and let you be alone with your precious gems.

Kind regards

Please remove our announcement from your forum. It was not worthy.

@tevkar

Good on you for signing your package. That is a good practice. Also good practice is validating those keys to be owned by a trusted party. As you are completely unknown to me, a lighttpd developer, your key is not trusted by me. Since lighttpd takes security seriously, I posted that point.

You posted this in the Support forum. You could have asked a question here in the Support forum or in the Developer forum before making your announcement.
Maybe try to work with us instead of spamming the forum with something that I then have to call out as untrusted and of dubious origin (to me)?

Further reasons that you might not be the best source for lighttpd software:

- We didn't know that lighttpd could be compiled natively

That indicates that you do not read lighttpd release notes.
https://redmine.lighttpd.net/projects/lighttpd/news
https://redmine.lighttpd.net/projects/lighttpd/wiki/Release-1_4_70
which states under "Important changes": "native Windows build (experimental) (not packaged; no installer)"

- We didn't know that lighttpd could be compiled natively nor it was available as a Cygwin package. We couldn't find that information at web sites we visit.

If you were unable to find that lighttpd is already a available as a cygwin package, where did you look?
lighttpd has been part of Cygwin since 2008 (and possibly earlier)
https://cygwin.com/cygwin/packages/summary/lighttpd.html

I encourage you to continue to contribute to open source. My feedback to you is that you should reach out to others and find where you can make a positive contribution.

Here, you posted that you produced something that turns out was not needed, and prior to posting, you did not make any attempt to find out if what you were doing was needed before you did it.

Hi,

Regarding Windows support: We looked at the latest release notes, not a previous one. It seems that native support is experimental, so we couldn't use it.

You're right about Cygwin packages - we should check better. However, our package still has an added value: A small package (5 MB) to install standard lighttpd on Windows as a service. Installing the whole Cygwin or other platforms has their drawbacks as having larger footprints for security vulnerabilities. Our approach is just to deliver what is needed.

We thought that the support forum was the correct place to contact developers. It seems that was not a straightforward assumption.

Anyway, please remove the whole forum discussion as you don't trust us. We will continue to make wlighttpd available to those who are interested.

Kind regards

I plan to leave this forum topic around so that anyone considering downloading your binary will be able to assess the amateur origin and your level of (in)competency with basic logical statements.

We thought that the support forum was the correct place to contact developers. It seems that was not a straightforward assumption.

You did contact lighttpd developers. However, you failed to ask any questions in this post besides "Why should we ?"

Regarding Windows support: We looked at the latest release notes, not a previous one. It seems that native support is experimental, so we couldn't use it.

Again, you continue to fail to ask questions. The native _WIN32 port of lighttpd (which I wrote) passes lighttpd's test framework and core functionality works fine. Since I do not have wide feedback of actual usage by others on this new lighttpd platform, I chose to announce the new lighttpd platform (_WIN32) as experimental.

We produced a free, small and sleek installer to enable lighttpd on Windows platforms, and made the community aware of it via the support forum. Contrary to your claims, we are experienced and have enough web of trust regarding software we provide. That's all.