Re: svn commit: r808062 - /httpd/mod_ftp/trunk/README-FTP

[Guenter Knauf <fu...@apache.org>]

Bill,
wrowe@apache.org schrieb:
> Author: wrowe
> Date: Wed Aug 26 15:44:52 2009
> New Revision: 808062
> 
> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=808062&view=rev
> Log:
> Attempt to merge two different copies of the netware build instructions.
what two different copies? where are these two?

> It is not clear ... gmake or make?  make -f NWGNUftp-makefile will or
> will not work properly?  Netware eyeballs requested.
GNU make, may it called gmake or make (but I think in main httpd docs we
speak about gmake, so we should be consistent with this);
and no - '[g]make -f NWGNUftp-makefile' does NOT work due to our
somewhat strange build system; therefore renaming to NWGNUmakefile IS
mandatory, and brings up the Q again to rename it already in mod_ftp SVN
as I did a while ago - but you were not fine with it because you thought
it would break in-tree build, and I renamed back; but also pointed out
that its NOT possible to do an in-tree build in such a simple way as
just copying into the tree + there are no benefits to build in-tree
because we anyway dont have the tools on Win32 (our build platform) to
regenerate the docs properly so that the links to mod_ftp are worked in
- or am I missing something here?

Günter.

Re: svn commit: r808062 - /httpd/mod_ftp/trunk/README-FTP

["William A. Rowe, Jr." <wr...@rowe-clan.net>]

Guenter Knauf wrote:
> 2) If anyone would do so he would most likely be on Win32 where you get
> a warning and you have to agree before an existing file is overwritten.

I always click 'yes' without paying much attention :)

Seriously ...

> 3) If anyone would really want to combine into httpd sources then this
> would certainly be a developer who is skilled enough to realize that the
> root makefile is useless, and instead its required to modify httpd's
> ./modules/NWGNUmakefile to include the ftp subdirectory + merge the
> install part of mod_ftp's makefile into the httpd root NWGNUmakefile -
> though I wonder who would do this all for zero benefit?

My thought is a script in build/ which would inject NWGNUfoomakefile,
Makefile-foo.win and Makefile-foo.in into the httpd build.  Won't get to
this instantly, but this layout makes things simpler.

I have another makefile thought to pursue which should satisfy your
goals more quickly, but let's drop this thread for the time being?

Re: svn commit: r808062 - /httpd/mod_ftp/trunk/README-FTP

[Guenter Knauf <fu...@apache.org>]

Bill,
William A. Rowe, Jr. schrieb:
> Guenter Knauf wrote:
>> what two different copies? where are these two?
> 
> There were two flavors of the instructions for netware, one occurred
> before and one after the section on rebuilding docs.
whoups?

>>> It is not clear ... gmake or make?  make -f NWGNUftp-makefile will or
>>> will not work properly?  Netware eyeballs requested.
>> GNU make, may it called gmake or make (but I think in main httpd docs we
>> speak about gmake, so we should be consistent with this);
> 
> +1, and from below, it looks like the right one is retained...
will revise soon unless you beat me :)

>> and no - '[g]make -f NWGNUftp-makefile' does NOT work due to our
>> somewhat strange build system; therefore renaming to NWGNUmakefile IS
>> mandatory, and brings up the Q again to rename it already in mod_ftp SVN
>> as I did a while ago - but you were not fine with it because you thought
>> it would break in-tree build, and I renamed back; but also pointed out
>> that its NOT possible to do an in-tree build in such a simple way as
>> just copying into the tree + there are no benefits to build in-tree
>> because we anyway dont have the tools on Win32 (our build platform) to
>> regenerate the docs properly so that the links to mod_ftp are worked in
>> - or am I missing something here?
> 
> Right, but anyone combining the packages into a single source would clobber
Why would anyone do this?
1) I made clear *and* documented that this is *not* supported nor gives
any benefit.
2) If anyone would do so he would most likely be on Win32 where you get
a warning and you have to agree before an existing file is overwritten.
3) If anyone would really want to combine into httpd sources then this
would certainly be a developer who is skilled enough to realize that the
root makefile is useless, and instead its required to modify httpd's
./modules/NWGNUmakefile to include the ftp subdirectory + merge the
install part of mod_ftp's makefile into the httpd root NWGNUmakefile -
though I wonder who would do this all for zero benefit?
> one or more of the NWGNUmakefile's that exist in the root; which is more
> than likely the first, httpd's.  So for safety's sake, I'm trying to be
> consistent (and fix some win32 inconsistencies here, as well).
I have no energy to further convince you, and dont care anymore about
the naming of the root makefile; though it was crazy when two others who
built mod_ftp in the past asked me:
Q: why do we need to rename the makefile?
A: because the httpd build system expects a NWGNUmakefile.
Q: Why is it then not directly named NWGNUmakefile?
A: Because it would clash with httpd's NWGNUmakefile when you copy
everything over into httpd source tree in order to do in-tree build.
Q: But the README states that in-tree is not supported nor of any
benefit - so why should I try this at all?
A: ??? /me not knowing what to answer :)

> FWIW, if the top level makefile referred to itself as $(MAKEFILE), perhaps
> this could be made to work in the future, having an arbitrary root makefile
> name?  Not that it's necessarily worth investing a lot of time in.
The NetWare build system is not optimal, and neither Brad nor I
developed it since we had no time these days - we had enough trouble
with getting familar with the new compiler, and only used the GUI with
project files; when Novell started to ship Apache 2.0 they needed to
have a commandline build process which could be easily adapted for
different build hosts and drive names, and so Novell India developed the
build system.
What I did in the past was fixing things as good as possible, but if I
would have enough time I would really write something else from the
scratch which looks more clear.
However, if I would write something new from the scratch then I would
probably consider going with OpenWatcom or gcc.

Maybe we can look into a OpenWatcom build system for httpd HEAD - it
could then build at least Win32 and NetWare targets, and probably also
OS/2 (Brian?) ...

Also would be a great thing if we could put the object files of each
directory into a makefile.inc which could then be included from all
platforms - this would simplify future changes a lot, and reduces
maintainance.

Günter.

Re: svn commit: r808062 - /httpd/mod_ftp/trunk/README-FTP

["William A. Rowe, Jr." <wr...@rowe-clan.net>]

Guenter Knauf wrote:
> what two different copies? where are these two?

There were two flavors of the instructions for netware, one occurred
before and one after the section on rebuilding docs.

>> It is not clear ... gmake or make?  make -f NWGNUftp-makefile will or
>> will not work properly?  Netware eyeballs requested.
> GNU make, may it called gmake or make (but I think in main httpd docs we
> speak about gmake, so we should be consistent with this);

+1, and from below, it looks like the right one is retained...

> and no - '[g]make -f NWGNUftp-makefile' does NOT work due to our
> somewhat strange build system; therefore renaming to NWGNUmakefile IS
> mandatory, and brings up the Q again to rename it already in mod_ftp SVN
> as I did a while ago - but you were not fine with it because you thought
> it would break in-tree build, and I renamed back; but also pointed out
> that its NOT possible to do an in-tree build in such a simple way as
> just copying into the tree + there are no benefits to build in-tree
> because we anyway dont have the tools on Win32 (our build platform) to
> regenerate the docs properly so that the links to mod_ftp are worked in
> - or am I missing something here?

Right, but anyone combining the packages into a single source would clobber
one or more of the NWGNUmakefile's that exist in the root; which is more
than likely the first, httpd's.  So for safety's sake, I'm trying to be
consistent (and fix some win32 inconsistencies here, as well).

FWIW, if the top level makefile referred to itself as $(MAKEFILE), perhaps
this could be made to work in the future, having an arbitrary root makefile
name?  Not that it's necessarily worth investing a lot of time in.

At some point, an option to recombine top level win32+netware makefiles in
the process of running ./buildconf would be cool, and I'm going to take a
look at that, sometime.  Not likely this week/month/year, though ;)