You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@httpd.apache.org by rb...@covalent.net on 2000/12/12 22:18:36 UTC
ARGH!
The CVS re-org is going to make this alpha take a bit more time than usual
(as if it hasn't already taken long enough). Most of the instructions
refer to files and directories that may not be there any more.
Ryan
_______________________________________________________________________________
Ryan Bloom rbb@apache.org
406 29th St.
San Francisco, CA 94131
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
test directories (was: Re: ARGH!)
Posted by Greg Stein <gs...@lyra.org>.
On Wed, Dec 13, 2000 at 04:29:31PM -0600, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
> > From: Greg Stein [mailto:gstein@lyra.org]
> > Sent: Wednesday, December 13, 2000 4:01 PM
> >
> > I had no idea that we didn't even ship them, though! That doesn't feel quite
> > right to me. No opinion on Apache, but on APRUTIL, I'd like to see that
> > testdbm gets shipped because it is actually a nice little tool for creating
> > and inspecting *DBM files.
>
> nak ... we have always had a policy of pulling all test/ directories from
> any tarball or binaries build.
Like I said: new news to me :-)
I'll tinker with Apache and APRUTIL to fix this. Somebody had added test to
Apache, then I nuked it thinking "woah, we don't build anything in there, so
don't recurse." Then I realized that we wanted to *clean* the test
directories, so I put test back into Apache and added it to APRUTIL :-)
Time to go do it the Right Way. I'll leave a turd in STATUS about this.
> However, I don't see an issue with creating a util/ directory that has thing
> like you describe - small bits of useful code that help the user with the
> package. Or just call it support/ in keeping with httpd's structure.
I'd call it util/ since it isn't supporting anything :-), but would be okay
with support/ if people leaned in that direction more.
Cheers,
-g
--
Greg Stein, http://www.lyra.org/
test directories (was: Re: ARGH!)
Posted by Greg Stein <gs...@lyra.org>.
On Wed, Dec 13, 2000 at 04:29:31PM -0600, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
> > From: Greg Stein [mailto:gstein@lyra.org]
> > Sent: Wednesday, December 13, 2000 4:01 PM
> >
> > I had no idea that we didn't even ship them, though! That doesn't feel quite
> > right to me. No opinion on Apache, but on APRUTIL, I'd like to see that
> > testdbm gets shipped because it is actually a nice little tool for creating
> > and inspecting *DBM files.
>
> nak ... we have always had a policy of pulling all test/ directories from
> any tarball or binaries build.
Like I said: new news to me :-)
I'll tinker with Apache and APRUTIL to fix this. Somebody had added test to
Apache, then I nuked it thinking "woah, we don't build anything in there, so
don't recurse." Then I realized that we wanted to *clean* the test
directories, so I put test back into Apache and added it to APRUTIL :-)
Time to go do it the Right Way. I'll leave a turd in STATUS about this.
> However, I don't see an issue with creating a util/ directory that has thing
> like you describe - small bits of useful code that help the user with the
> package. Or just call it support/ in keeping with httpd's structure.
I'd call it util/ since it isn't supporting anything :-), but would be okay
with support/ if people leaned in that direction more.
Cheers,
-g
--
Greg Stein, http://www.lyra.org/
RE: ARGH!
Posted by "William A. Rowe, Jr." <wr...@rowe-clan.net>.
> From: Greg Stein [mailto:gstein@lyra.org]
> Sent: Wednesday, December 13, 2000 4:01 PM
>
> I had no idea that we didn't even ship them, though! That doesn't feel quite
> right to me. No opinion on Apache, but on APRUTIL, I'd like to see that
> testdbm gets shipped because it is actually a nice little tool for creating
> and inspecting *DBM files.
nak ... we have always had a policy of pulling all test/ directories from
any tarball or binaries build.
However, I don't see an issue with creating a util/ directory that has thing
like you describe - small bits of useful code that help the user with the
package. Or just call it support/ in keeping with httpd's structure.
Re: ARGH!
Posted by Dale Ghent <da...@elemental.org>.
On Wed, 13 Dec 2000, Greg Stein wrote:
| We attempt to recurse into test in Apache and apr-util to clean them up.
| Neither directory builds anything by default.
| [ we discussed this aspect last week ]
In my case, I got a zero-length Makefile in each directory. (At the
tail end of the ./configure run, it'll complain about Makefile.in not
existing in these test dirs). When doing just a 'make' (no arguments),
make would eventually cd into the test directories and bomb out on this
bogus Makefile.
/dale
RE: ARGH!
Posted by "William A. Rowe, Jr." <wr...@rowe-clan.net>.
> From: Greg Stein [mailto:gstein@lyra.org]
> Sent: Wednesday, December 13, 2000 4:01 PM
>
> I had no idea that we didn't even ship them, though! That doesn't feel quite
> right to me. No opinion on Apache, but on APRUTIL, I'd like to see that
> testdbm gets shipped because it is actually a nice little tool for creating
> and inspecting *DBM files.
nak ... we have always had a policy of pulling all test/ directories from
any tarball or binaries build.
However, I don't see an issue with creating a util/ directory that has thing
like you describe - small bits of useful code that help the user with the
package. Or just call it support/ in keeping with httpd's structure.
Re: ARGH!
Posted by Dale Ghent <da...@elemental.org>.
On Wed, 13 Dec 2000, Greg Stein wrote:
| We attempt to recurse into test in Apache and apr-util to clean them up.
| Neither directory builds anything by default.
| [ we discussed this aspect last week ]
In my case, I got a zero-length Makefile in each directory. (At the
tail end of the ./configure run, it'll complain about Makefile.in not
existing in these test dirs). When doing just a 'make' (no arguments),
make would eventually cd into the test directories and bomb out on this
bogus Makefile.
/dale
Re: ARGH!
Posted by Greg Stein <gs...@lyra.org>.
On Wed, Dec 13, 2000 at 06:24:25AM -0800, rbb@covalent.net wrote:
>
> > |
> > | The CVS re-org is going to make this alpha take a bit more time than usual
> > | (as if it hasn't already taken long enough). Most of the instructions
> > | refer to files and directories that may not be there any more.
> >
> > I just downloaded and ./configure'd the a9 tarball. It seems that the
> > various test directories (test, srclib/apr/test,
> > srclib/apr-util/test) didnt get populated, and this causes the make to
> > bomb.
>
> Those should have been completely removed :-( That's what the "rolling a
> tarball" page says to do. I bet we are trying to build test by default,
> which is just wrong.
We attempt to recurse into test in Apache and apr-util to clean them up.
Neither directory builds anything by default.
[ we discussed this aspect last week ]
I had no idea that we didn't even ship them, though! That doesn't feel quite
right to me. No opinion on Apache, but on APRUTIL, I'd like to see that
testdbm gets shipped because it is actually a nice little tool for creating
and inspecting *DBM files.
Cheers,
-g
--
Greg Stein, http://www.lyra.org/
Re: ARGH!
Posted by Greg Stein <gs...@lyra.org>.
On Wed, Dec 13, 2000 at 06:24:25AM -0800, rbb@covalent.net wrote:
>
> > |
> > | The CVS re-org is going to make this alpha take a bit more time than usual
> > | (as if it hasn't already taken long enough). Most of the instructions
> > | refer to files and directories that may not be there any more.
> >
> > I just downloaded and ./configure'd the a9 tarball. It seems that the
> > various test directories (test, srclib/apr/test,
> > srclib/apr-util/test) didnt get populated, and this causes the make to
> > bomb.
>
> Those should have been completely removed :-( That's what the "rolling a
> tarball" page says to do. I bet we are trying to build test by default,
> which is just wrong.
We attempt to recurse into test in Apache and apr-util to clean them up.
Neither directory builds anything by default.
[ we discussed this aspect last week ]
I had no idea that we didn't even ship them, though! That doesn't feel quite
right to me. No opinion on Apache, but on APRUTIL, I'd like to see that
testdbm gets shipped because it is actually a nice little tool for creating
and inspecting *DBM files.
Cheers,
-g
--
Greg Stein, http://www.lyra.org/
Re: ARGH!
Posted by rb...@covalent.net.
> |
> | The CVS re-org is going to make this alpha take a bit more time than usual
> | (as if it hasn't already taken long enough). Most of the instructions
> | refer to files and directories that may not be there any more.
>
> I just downloaded and ./configure'd the a9 tarball. It seems that the
> various test directories (test, srclib/apr/test,
> srclib/apr-util/test) didnt get populated, and this causes the make to
> bomb.
Those should have been completely removed :-( That's what the "rolling a
tarball" page says to do. I bet we are trying to build test by default,
which is just wrong.
Ryan
_______________________________________________________________________________
Ryan Bloom rbb@apache.org
406 29th St.
San Francisco, CA 94131
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Re: ARGH!
Posted by Dale Ghent <da...@elemental.org>.
On Tue, 12 Dec 2000 rbb@covalent.net wrote:
|
| The CVS re-org is going to make this alpha take a bit more time than usual
| (as if it hasn't already taken long enough). Most of the instructions
| refer to files and directories that may not be there any more.
I just downloaded and ./configure'd the a9 tarball. It seems that the
various test directories (test, srclib/apr/test,
srclib/apr-util/test) didnt get populated, and this causes the make to
bomb.
Weird.x
/dale