You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@apr.apache.org by Joe Orton <jo...@redhat.com> on 2004/07/01 16:30:08 UTC
Re: apr pkgconfig use (apr.pc vs. apr-1.pc)
On Wed, Jun 30, 2004 at 10:39:16AM -0400, Greg Hudson wrote:
> On Wed, 2004-06-30 at 04:56, Joe Orton wrote:
> > > Install apr-config as apr-$(APR_MAJOR_VERSION)-config ?
> >
> > Greg wrote "remove" rather than "rename", though indeed, I guess
> > renaming should work.
>
> Renaming is also fine.
Installing ap[ru]-$N-config alongside ap[ru]-config is probably all
that's going to be feasible for the 1.0.0 release, at least I don't have
time to deal with the fallout of removing ap[ru]-config entirely right
now.
The AP?_FIND_AP? macros in find_ap?.m4 need to be adjusted to take a
minimum required library version argument, there's probably more...
joe
Re: apr pkgconfig use (apr.pc vs. apr-1.pc)
Posted by Greg Hudson <gh...@MIT.EDU>.
On Thu, 2004-07-01 at 10:30, Joe Orton wrote:
> Installing ap[ru]-$N-config alongside ap[ru]-config is probably all
> that's going to be feasible for the 1.0.0 release, at least I don't have
> time to deal with the fallout of removing ap[ru]-config entirely right
> now.
Hm. That's disappointing; it means that apr 0.9 can't be co-located on
a system with apr 1.0 without hacking, and that apr-0.9-using apps will
be screwed by the installation of apr 1.0.
Re: apr pkgconfig use (apr.pc vs. apr-1.pc)
Posted by Joe Orton <jo...@redhat.com>.
Sorry, thought I sent this last week...
On Thu, Jul 01, 2004 at 06:44:45PM -0400, Greg Hudson wrote:
> I may not be understanding all of the constraints. Can you tell me
> what goes wrong with this solution?
>
> * apr-config does not get renamed in 0.9.
> * We introduce a new macro APR_FIND_APR1 to find apr 1.0 by looking
> for apr-1-config.
That should work too. Having the version as an argument rather than
using a new macro name was just the obvious way to avoid duplicating the
macro.
> > (BTW note that the apr-config script is only named apr-N-config by
> > "make install"; it's still called "apr-config" in a build tree)
>
> Any reason that can't change? If it can't change, APR_FIND_APR1 can
> use apr-config when using a bundled apr directory.
Possibly, I'm not sure. Renaming apr-config.in in CVS to
apr-1-config.in would work but it would be the first time
APR_MAJOR_VERSION is encoded anywhere other than in apr_version.h, which
is a little ugly.
> (Also, since I haven't seen other people jumping up and volunteering
> to make this happen, where is the boundary between what you're willing
> to do and where I should submit a patch?)
I'm not sure what you're asking here. If you submit a patch I'll commit
it if it looks OK to me. Otherwise I'll do the work myself when I find
time.
joe
Re: apr pkgconfig use (apr.pc vs. apr-1.pc)
Posted by Greg Hudson <gh...@MIT.EDU>.
Joe Orton wrote:
> If apr-config is not renamed in the 0.9 branch (which is really
> required for compatibility), then I guess yes, make the argument
> optional, and have logic:
> AP?_FIND_AP?(without extra version argument)
> => use apr-1-config if found else apr-config if found
> AP?_FIND_AP?(requires version N)
> => use apr-N-config if found else no fallback
I may not be understanding all of the constraints. Can you tell me
what goes wrong with this solution?
* apr-config does not get renamed in 0.9.
* We introduce a new macro APR_FIND_APR1 to find apr 1.0 by looking
for apr-1-config.
and similarly for apr-util and friends. httpd 2.1 changes to use
APR_FIND_APR1 etc. instead of passing an argument to APR_FIND_APR. If
an app wants to work against both versions of apr, it tries
APR_FIND_APR1 and then tries APR_FIND_APR if apr_found is no.
> (BTW note that the apr-config script is only named apr-N-config by
> "make install"; it's still called "apr-config" in a build tree)
Any reason that can't change? If it can't change, APR_FIND_APR1 can
use apr-config when using a bundled apr directory.
(Also, since I haven't seen other people jumping up and volunteering
to make this happen, where is the boundary between what you're willing
to do and where I should submit a patch?)
Re: apr pkgconfig use (apr.pc vs. apr-1.pc)
Posted by Joe Orton <jo...@redhat.com>.
On Thu, Jul 01, 2004 at 10:45:54AM -0400, Greg Hudson wrote:
> On Thu, 2004-07-01 at 10:39, Joe Orton wrote:
> > This is done on HEAD: patches welcome for below to expedite removal of
> > ap[ru]-config.
> >
> > > The AP?_FIND_AP? macros in find_ap?.m4 need to be adjusted to take a
> > > minimum required library version argument, there's probably more...
>
> Would it be okay to make it take just a library version argument, no
> "minimum required"? It means if an application wants to work against
> multiple major versions of APR, it has to implement its own fallback
> logic.
If apr-config is not renamed in the 0.9 branch (which is really required
for compatibility), then I guess yes, make the argument optional, and
have logic:
AP?_FIND_AP?(without extra version argument)
=> use apr-1-config if found else apr-config if found
AP?_FIND_AP?(requires version N)
=> use apr-N-config if found else no fallback
the app can always just call the macro again with a different N.
(BTW note that the apr-config script is only named apr-N-config by "make
install"; it's still called "apr-config" in a build tree)
joe
Re: apr pkgconfig use (apr.pc vs. apr-1.pc)
Posted by Greg Hudson <gh...@MIT.EDU>.
On Thu, 2004-07-01 at 10:39, Joe Orton wrote:
> This is done on HEAD: patches welcome for below to expedite removal of
> ap[ru]-config.
>
> > The AP?_FIND_AP? macros in find_ap?.m4 need to be adjusted to take a
> > minimum required library version argument, there's probably more...
Would it be okay to make it take just a library version argument, no
"minimum required"? It means if an application wants to work against
multiple major versions of APR, it has to implement its own fallback
logic.
Re: apr pkgconfig use (apr.pc vs. apr-1.pc)
Posted by Joe Orton <jo...@redhat.com>.
On Thu, Jul 01, 2004 at 03:30:08PM +0100, Joe Orton wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 30, 2004 at 10:39:16AM -0400, Greg Hudson wrote:
> > On Wed, 2004-06-30 at 04:56, Joe Orton wrote:
> > > > Install apr-config as apr-$(APR_MAJOR_VERSION)-config ?
> > >
> > > Greg wrote "remove" rather than "rename", though indeed, I guess
> > > renaming should work.
> >
> > Renaming is also fine.
>
> Installing ap[ru]-$N-config alongside ap[ru]-config is probably all
> that's going to be feasible for the 1.0.0 release, at least I don't have
> time to deal with the fallout of removing ap[ru]-config entirely right
> now.
This is done on HEAD: patches welcome for below to expedite removal of
ap[ru]-config.
> The AP?_FIND_AP? macros in find_ap?.m4 need to be adjusted to take a
> minimum required library version argument, there's probably more...