You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@qpid.apache.org by Rupert Smith <ru...@googlemail.com> on 2007/02/06 17:15:54 UTC
Apr version for C++ Build.
What version of apr does the C++ build use? In README-dist it claims
1.2.2but in
README.rhel3 it claims 1.2.7. I guess either will do, but seems sensible to
have a consistent version. I used 1.2.7.
Rupert
Re: Apr version for C++ Build.
Posted by Rupert Smith <ru...@googlemail.com>.
Ok will submit new README and put a reminder note on the JIRA to update the
packaging rules when applying the patch, as I am not familiar with how its
done.
On 2/7/07, Alan Conway <ac...@redhat.com> wrote:
>
> On Wed, 2007-02-07 at 10:42 +0000, Rupert Smith wrote:
> > The other thing wrong with the build instructions is that README-dist is
> not
> > included in the source distribution and README-dev is. In fact, you need
> to
> > read both in order to do a build and figure out how the instructions in
> both
> > these files need to be merged together. Might be better just to have a
> > single set of instructions in one file, with an optional section at the
> > begining decribing steps to be taken to build from a checkout and then
> > common steps to build from a source distribution. If this sounds like a
> good
> > idea, I volunteer to submit a patch for it while it is still fresh in my
> > mind.
>
> Many thanks, the README definitely needs a fresh pair of eyes. I would
> suggest combining README-dist and README-dev into a single README file,
> with the distribution stuff at the top and the dev stuff further down.
> I'm not sure why I split it up in the first place and it doesn't seem
> very helpful.
>
> The Makefile.am and qpid.spec packaging rules will need adjusting, I'll
> be happy to take care of it once you update the README if you're not
> familiar.
>
> Thanks again,
> Alan.
>
>
Re: Apr version for C++ Build.
Posted by Alan Conway <ac...@redhat.com>.
On Wed, 2007-02-07 at 10:42 +0000, Rupert Smith wrote:
> The other thing wrong with the build instructions is that README-dist is not
> included in the source distribution and README-dev is. In fact, you need to
> read both in order to do a build and figure out how the instructions in both
> these files need to be merged together. Might be better just to have a
> single set of instructions in one file, with an optional section at the
> begining decribing steps to be taken to build from a checkout and then
> common steps to build from a source distribution. If this sounds like a good
> idea, I volunteer to submit a patch for it while it is still fresh in my
> mind.
Many thanks, the README definitely needs a fresh pair of eyes. I would
suggest combining README-dist and README-dev into a single README file,
with the distribution stuff at the top and the dev stuff further down.
I'm not sure why I split it up in the first place and it doesn't seem
very helpful.
The Makefile.am and qpid.spec packaging rules will need adjusting, I'll
be happy to take care of it once you update the README if you're not
familiar.
Thanks again,
Alan.
Re: Apr version for C++ Build.
Posted by Rupert Smith <ru...@googlemail.com>.
Yes, README.rhel3 is out of date. It referes to scripts that are no longer
there. It was usefull to me when doing a build on rh3 though, because the
other READMEs didn't mention make 3.8 which I had to upgrade to. README-dist
should probably mention make 3.8 perhaps in a "How to Build on RH3 "
section.
The other thing wrong with the build instructions is that README-dist is not
included in the source distribution and README-dev is. In fact, you need to
read both in order to do a build and figure out how the instructions in both
these files need to be merged together. Might be better just to have a
single set of instructions in one file, with an optional section at the
begining decribing steps to be taken to build from a checkout and then
common steps to build from a source distribution. If this sounds like a good
idea, I volunteer to submit a patch for it while it is still fresh in my
mind.
Rupert
On 2/6/07, Alan Conway <ac...@redhat.com> wrote:
>
> On Tue, 2007-02-06 at 17:26 +0000, Gordon Sim wrote:
> > Rupert Smith wrote:
> > > What version of apr does the C++ build use? In README-dist it claims
> > > 1.2.2but in
> > > README.rhel3 it claims 1.2.7. I guess either will do, but seems
> sensible to
> > > have a consistent version. I used 1.2.7.
> >
> > Can't answer the question authoritatively I'm afraid. I also use 1.2.7.
> >
> > The README.rhel3 was initially created prior to the autoconf based build
> > and perhaps should no longer be there at all.
>
> There hasn't been any attempt to identify the earliest versions that
> qpid can work with, so the versions mentioned in the READMEs are usually
> just whatever was on the persons machine at the time they wrote the
> README. It may well be the case that older versions work (definitely is
> for some libs.)
>
> I didn't do the rhel3 README so I don't know if there's a particular
> reason it mentions a higher version, but choosing the higher version in
> case of doubt is a good plan.
>
> Cheers,
> Alan.
>
>
Re: Apr version for C++ Build.
Posted by Alan Conway <ac...@redhat.com>.
On Tue, 2007-02-06 at 17:26 +0000, Gordon Sim wrote:
> Rupert Smith wrote:
> > What version of apr does the C++ build use? In README-dist it claims
> > 1.2.2but in
> > README.rhel3 it claims 1.2.7. I guess either will do, but seems sensible to
> > have a consistent version. I used 1.2.7.
>
> Can't answer the question authoritatively I'm afraid. I also use 1.2.7.
>
> The README.rhel3 was initially created prior to the autoconf based build
> and perhaps should no longer be there at all.
There hasn't been any attempt to identify the earliest versions that
qpid can work with, so the versions mentioned in the READMEs are usually
just whatever was on the persons machine at the time they wrote the
README. It may well be the case that older versions work (definitely is
for some libs.)
I didn't do the rhel3 README so I don't know if there's a particular
reason it mentions a higher version, but choosing the higher version in
case of doubt is a good plan.
Cheers,
Alan.
Re: Apr version for C++ Build.
Posted by Gordon Sim <gs...@redhat.com>.
Rupert Smith wrote:
> What version of apr does the C++ build use? In README-dist it claims
> 1.2.2but in
> README.rhel3 it claims 1.2.7. I guess either will do, but seems sensible to
> have a consistent version. I used 1.2.7.
Can't answer the question authoritatively I'm afraid. I also use 1.2.7.
The README.rhel3 was initially created prior to the autoconf based build
and perhaps should no longer be there at all.