You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to apreq-dev@httpd.apache.org by Kurt Lidl <ku...@cello.com> on 2009/05/11 22:09:18 UTC
2.12 vs 2.08
I have been using the 2.08 version libapreq2 for quite a while.
Today, I tried to upgrade to the 2.12 version on one of my
development machines.
It failed to compile. The long and short of it is that 2.08
would compile using just the regular "make" on OpenSolaris.
2.12 won't compile unless you use "gmake".
When you attempt to build with just "make", the build fails with:
gcc -shared -Wl,-h -Wl,mod_apreq2.so -o .libs/mod_apreq2.so
.libs/handle.o .libs/filter.o
-R/homes/staff/lidl/hg/rmdb/notes/perl_modules/obj/libapreq2-2.12/library/.libs
-R/usr/local/apache22/lib -R/usr/local/apache22/lib
/homes/staff/lidl/hg/rmdb/notes/perl_modules/obj/libapreq2-2.12/library/.libs/libapreq2.so
-L/usr/local/apache22/lib -L/usr/local/BerkeleyDB.4.7/lib -luuid
-lsendfile -lsocket -lnsl -lpthread -ldb-4.7
/usr/local/apache22/lib/libapr-1.so
/usr/local/apache22/lib/libaprutil-1.so -lc
ar cru .libs/mod_apreq2.a handle.o filter.o
ranlib .libs/mod_apreq2.a
creating mod_apreq2.la
(cd .libs && rm -f mod_apreq2.la && ln -s ../mod_apreq2.la mod_apreq2.la)
make: Fatal error: Don't know how to make target `all-local'
Current working directory
/homes/staff/lidl/hg/rmdb/notes/perl_modules/obj/libapreq2-2.12/module/apache2
*** Error code 1
The following command caused the error:
set fnord $MAKEFLAGS; amf=$2; \
dot_seen=no; \
target=`echo all-recursive | sed s/-recursive//`; \
list='apache2'; for subdir in $list; do \
echo "Making $target in $subdir"; \
if test "$subdir" = "."; then \
dot_seen=yes; \
local_target="$target-am"; \
else \
local_target="$target"; \
fi; \
(cd $subdir && make $local_target) \
|| case "$amf" in *=*) exit 1;; *k*) fail=yes;; *) exit 1;; esac; \
done; \
if test "$dot_seen" = "no"; then \
make "$target-am" || exit 1; \
fi; test -z "$fail"
make: Fatal error: Command failed for target `all-recursive'
Current working directory
/homes/staff/lidl/hg/rmdb/notes/perl_modules/obj/libapreq2-2.12/module
*** Error code 1
The following command caused the error:
set fnord $MAKEFLAGS; amf=$2; \
dot_seen=no; \
target=`echo all-recursive | sed s/-recursive//`; \
list='. include library module glue'; for subdir in $list; do \
echo "Making $target in $subdir"; \
if test "$subdir" = "."; then \
dot_seen=yes; \
local_target="$target-am"; \
else \
local_target="$target"; \
fi; \
(cd $subdir && make $local_target) \
|| case "$amf" in *=*) exit 1;; *k*) fail=yes;; *) exit 1;; esac; \
done; \
if test "$dot_seen" = "no"; then \
make "$target-am" || exit 1; \
fi; test -z "$fail"
make: Fatal error: Command failed for target `all-recursive'
Re: 2.12 vs 2.08
Posted by "Philip M. Gollucci" <pg...@p6m7g8.com>.
Philip M. Gollucci wrote:
> That'd be nice. That be the developer that created the dist tarball then.
>
> I'll give it a whirl if I get a chance, but I'm moving before the end of
> May.
Well
$ ./buildconf
$ gmake release_test
(in the tag didn't work for me)
same error, I've been asked to revert the freebsd port update to since it
breaks about 10 dependendant ports, so I'll do that, then guess we'll have to
fix it and roll v2_13.
The fix still escapes me at the moment though.
*sigh*
This is what I get for being busy during the RC phase. mumble.
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1024D/DB9B8C1C B90B FBC3 A3A1 C71A 8E70 3F8C 75B8 8FFB DB9B 8C1C
Philip M. Gollucci (pgollucci@p6m7g8.com) c: 703.336.9354
Consultant - P6M7G8 Inc. http://p6m7g8.net
Senior Sys Admin - RideCharge, Inc. http://ridecharge.com
Contractor - PositiveEnergyUSA http://positiveenergyusa.com
ASF Member - Apache Software Foundation http://apache.org
FreeBSD Committer - FreeBSD Foundation http://freebsd.org
Work like you don't need the money,
love like you'll never get hurt,
and dance like nobody's watching.
Re: 2.12 vs 2.08
Posted by "Philip M. Gollucci" <pg...@p6m7g8.com>.
Kurt Lidl wrote:
> Philip M. Gollucci wrote:
>> Philip M. Gollucci wrote:
>>
>>> The long answer is I don't know what we broke yet.
>>>
>> http://people.apache.org/~pgollucci/v2_08_vs_v2_12.diff
>>
>> Well, AFAIK, that diff (a subset) are the only possible things that
>> could have caused it. Lets see if I can figure it out before I fall asleep.
>>
> Experimentation shows that if one installs the 'fastdep' program,
> arranges to have aclocal and autoconf
> in one's path and then run './buildconf', it will generate working
> Makefiles, that will just work on OpenSolaris.
>
> I also noticed that the automake used for 2.08 was 1.9.6 and the
> automake used for
> 2.12 was 1.6.3. 1.6.3 is, um, ancient. When I re-ran the autoconf with
> the 1.9.6 version
> of autoconf, it works with just the regular "make" on OpenSolaris.
>
> Perhaps just regenerating the Makefile.in contents with a newer
> autoconfigure would be enough to fix this
> problem on other machines?
That'd be nice. That be the developer that created the dist tarball then.
I'll give it a whirl if I get a chance, but I'm moving before the end of May.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1024D/DB9B8C1C B90B FBC3 A3A1 C71A 8E70 3F8C 75B8 8FFB DB9B 8C1C
Philip M. Gollucci (pgollucci@p6m7g8.com) c: 703.336.9354
Consultant - P6M7G8 Inc. http://p6m7g8.net
Senior Sys Admin - RideCharge, Inc. http://ridecharge.com
Contractor - PositiveEnergyUSA http://positiveenergyusa.com
ASF Member - Apache Software Foundation http://apache.org
FreeBSD Committer - FreeBSD Foundation http://freebsd.org
Work like you don't need the money,
love like you'll never get hurt,
and dance like nobody's watching.
Re: 2.12 vs 2.08
Posted by Kurt Lidl <ku...@cello.com>.
Philip M. Gollucci wrote:
> Philip M. Gollucci wrote:
>
>> The long answer is I don't know what we broke yet.
>>
> http://people.apache.org/~pgollucci/v2_08_vs_v2_12.diff
>
> Well, AFAIK, that diff (a subset) are the only possible things that
> could have caused it. Lets see if I can figure it out before I fall asleep.
>
Experimentation shows that if one installs the 'fastdep' program,
arranges to have aclocal and autoconf
in one's path and then run './buildconf', it will generate working
Makefiles, that will just work on OpenSolaris.
I also noticed that the automake used for 2.08 was 1.9.6 and the
automake used for
2.12 was 1.6.3. 1.6.3 is, um, ancient. When I re-ran the autoconf with
the 1.9.6 version
of autoconf, it works with just the regular "make" on OpenSolaris.
Perhaps just regenerating the Makefile.in contents with a newer
autoconfigure would be enough to fix this
problem on other machines?
-Kurt
Re: 2.12 vs 2.08
Posted by "Philip M. Gollucci" <pg...@p6m7g8.com>.
Philip M. Gollucci wrote:
> The long answer is I don't know what we broke yet.
http://people.apache.org/~pgollucci/v2_08_vs_v2_12.diff
Well, AFAIK, that diff (a subset) are the only possible things that
could have caused it. Lets see if I can figure it out before I fall asleep.
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Philip M. Gollucci (philip@ridecharge.com)
did: 703.579.6947, o: 703.549.2050x206
Senior System Admin - RideCharge Inc.
http://ridecharge.com
1024D/DB9B8C1C B90B FBC3 A3A1 C71A 8E70 3F8C 75B8 8FFB DB9B 8C1C
Work like you don't need the money,
love like you'll never get hurt,
and dance like nobody's watching.
Re: 2.12 vs 2.08
Posted by "Philip M. Gollucci" <pg...@p6m7g8.com>.
Kurt Lidl wrote:
> I have been using the 2.08 version libapreq2 for quite a while.
>
> Today, I tried to upgrade to the 2.12 version on one of my
> development machines.
>
> It failed to compile. The long and short of it is that 2.08
> would compile using just the regular "make" on OpenSolaris.
> 2.12 won't compile unless you use "gmake".
>
> When you attempt to build with just "make", the build fails with:
The short answer is yes we/I know.
(fbsd port handles it somehow)
The long answer is I don't know what we broke yet.
patches welcome. Sorry for the hassle.
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Philip M. Gollucci (philip@ridecharge.com)
did: 703.579.6947, o: 703.549.2050x206
Senior System Admin - RideCharge Inc.
http://ridecharge.com
1024D/DB9B8C1C B90B FBC3 A3A1 C71A 8E70 3F8C 75B8 8FFB DB9B 8C1C
Work like you don't need the money,
love like you'll never get hurt,
and dance like nobody's watching.