You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@apr.apache.org by Max Bowsher <ma...@ukf.net> on 2005/10/31 17:45:41 UTC
[PATCH] 0.9.x backport of the "make apr-util compilable without apr source" change
Currently, apr-util 0.9.x requires that apr source be available in order to
configure and make.
This makes it awkward to package apr-util using a packaging system. This
overly close coupling has already been fixed in 1.x, and I'd like 0.9.x to
get the benefit too.
Changes to both apr and apr-util are involved - though these changes are
entirely backports, they occurred on trunk as multiple revisions - I've
written new log messages to describe the overall result of the group of
changes I'm suggesting be backported:
APR:
[[[
Backport r65212, r65249, r65250, r65251 from trunk.
Install mkdir.sh, make_exports.awk, make_var_export.awk to the APR
installbuilddir, and avoid placing paths to the source and build directories
into the installed apr_rules.mk.
* Makefile.in (CLEAN_TARGETS): Add "build/apr_rules.out".
(build/apr_rules.out): New rule to create by changing build-dir paths to
installed paths.
(install): Depend on build/apr_rules.out, and install it as apr_rules.mk.
Also install mkdir.sh, make_exports.awk and make_var_export.awk.
(exports.c, export_vars.c): Use new make-variable defined in apr_rules.mk.
* build/apr_rules.mk.in (MKEXPORT): Remove obsolete definition which is
broken
anyway, since it refers to a nonexistant file.
(APR_MKDIR, APR_MKEXPORT, APR_MKVAREXPORT): New definitions
- the commands to run various installbuilddir tools.
]]]
APR-util:
[[[
Backport r59073, r59075, r59086, r59087 from trunk.
Use mkdir.sh, make_exports.awk, make_var_export.awk from the APR
installbuilddir, instead of requiring APR source to be available at APR-util
build time. Requires APR 0.9.8, since earlier versions did not install
all necessary files to the installbuilddir.
* Makefile.in (install, exports.c, export_vars.h): Use new apr_rules.mk
definitions APR_MKDIR, APR_MKEXPORT and APR_MKVAREXPORT.
* build/apu-conf.m4 (APU_FIND_APR):
Remove the `apr-config --srcdir` invocation and corresponding AC_SUBST.
]]]
Applying these changes would, of course, mean that apr-util 0.9.8 would
require apr 0.9.8 or later to build against.
IIUC, a strict reading of the APR compatibility rules means this is OK,
under the "Before 1.0, anything goes", clause - but on the other hand, 0.9.x
is sort of semi-stable now.
Is this compatibility restriction OK, and if so, is a note in the
documentation OK, or should I also patch APU_FIND_APR to verify this?
Thanks,
Max.
Re: [PATCH] 0.9.x backport of the "make apr-util compilable without
apr source" change
Posted by Max Bowsher <ma...@ukf.net>.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
> Max Bowsher wrote:
>> Joe Orton wrote:
>>> On Mon, Oct 31, 2005 at 04:45:41PM -0000, Max Bowsher wrote:
>>>
>>>> Currently, apr-util 0.9.x requires that apr source be available in
>>>> order to configure and make.
>>>>
>>>> This makes it awkward to package apr-util using a packaging system.
>>>> This overly close coupling has already been fixed in 1.x, and I'd
>>>> like 0.9.x to get the benefit too.
>>>
>>> I'm not sure that's strong enough motivation to put this in 0.9.x and
>>> risk breaking the build in some new and interesting way. (I introduced
>>> at least one regression during those changes IIRC)
>>
>> That's true, but since then, those changes have been in all apr
>> versions since 1.0.0, so the final fixed form of the changes has had
>> extensive testing.
>>
>> The patches are also not very complex.
>>
>> There is always some risk of breaking something when introducing
>> changes, but I think in this case it is rather small.
>
> If you would like to commit this, I'm willing to validate on Solaris x86
> in my more-sophisticated VPATH build environment, that all is well.
Thanks. I'll revisit the patch and commit it once my commit access is
set up. (Currently pending confirmation of ICLA receipt.)
> I presume you are only talking about ./configure portability against
> installed apr trees; the ./buildconf would still use the source apr
> distribution, right?
That's correct.
Max.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (Cygwin)
iD8DBQFD7djKfFNSmcDyxYARAhXUAKCM6euA1FFRnilC2frS7t28MdTRDgCfbcUn
yjmQPHAXR+hxxWxfTwtKdbk=
=x7uu
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Re: [PATCH] 0.9.x backport of the "make apr-util compilable without
apr source" change
Posted by "William A. Rowe, Jr." <wr...@rowe-clan.net>.
Max Bowsher wrote:
> Joe Orton wrote:
>
>> On Mon, Oct 31, 2005 at 04:45:41PM -0000, Max Bowsher wrote:
>>
>>> Currently, apr-util 0.9.x requires that apr source be available in
>>> order to
>>> configure and make.
>>>
>>> This makes it awkward to package apr-util using a packaging system. This
>>> overly close coupling has already been fixed in 1.x, and I'd like
>>> 0.9.x to
>>> get the benefit too.
>>
>>
>> I'm not sure that's strong enough motivation to put this in 0.9.x and
>> risk breaking the build in some new and interesting way. (I introduced
>> at least one regression during those changes IIRC)
>
>
> That's true, but since then, those changes have been in all apr versions
> since 1.0.0, so the final fixed form of the changes has had extensive
> testing.
>
> The patches are also not very complex.
>
> There is always some risk of breaking something when introducing
> changes, but I think in this case it is rather small.
If you would like to commit this, I'm willing to validate on Solaris x86 in my
more-sophisticated VPATH build environment, that all is well.
I presume you are only talking about ./configure portability against installed
apr trees; the ./buildconf would still use the source apr distribution, right?
Bill
Re: [PATCH] 0.9.x backport of the "make apr-util compilable without apr source" change
Posted by Max Bowsher <ma...@ukf.net>.
Joe Orton wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 31, 2005 at 04:45:41PM -0000, Max Bowsher wrote:
>> Currently, apr-util 0.9.x requires that apr source be available in order
>> to
>> configure and make.
>>
>> This makes it awkward to package apr-util using a packaging system. This
>> overly close coupling has already been fixed in 1.x, and I'd like 0.9.x
>> to
>> get the benefit too.
>
> I'm not sure that's strong enough motivation to put this in 0.9.x and
> risk breaking the build in some new and interesting way. (I introduced
> at least one regression during those changes IIRC)
That's true, but since then, those changes have been in all apr versions
since 1.0.0, so the final fixed form of the changes has had extensive
testing.
The patches are also not very complex.
There is always some risk of breaking something when introducing changes,
but I think in this case it is rather small.
Max.
Re: [PATCH] 0.9.x backport of the "make apr-util compilable without apr source" change
Posted by Joe Orton <jo...@redhat.com>.
On Mon, Oct 31, 2005 at 04:45:41PM -0000, Max Bowsher wrote:
> Currently, apr-util 0.9.x requires that apr source be available in order to
> configure and make.
>
> This makes it awkward to package apr-util using a packaging system. This
> overly close coupling has already been fixed in 1.x, and I'd like 0.9.x to
> get the benefit too.
I'm not sure that's strong enough motivation to put this in 0.9.x and
risk breaking the build in some new and interesting way. (I introduced
at least one regression during those changes IIRC)
joe