automake/autoconf/libtool for 2.0

["Roy T. Fielding" <fi...@kiwi.ics.uci.edu>]

Hmmm, I was wondering why there was so much interest in a tiny commit.
If we are going to have yet another long discussion about config
mechanisms, we should at least use an appropriate subject line.

>I think we have plenty of autoconf experience here.  I don't think it will
>be a problem getting this done in 2.0.  And in fact, I'd like to propose
>that we don't make it an autoconf system but rather an automake/libtool
>system.  Seeing a configure.in.in file is probably going to make a few

Yep, that was pretty much agreed to long ago, though I've never seen a
configure.in.in file (automake uses configure.in and Makefile.am).
I can set it up, but not until I can put enough free hours together
to really understand the 2.0 package as a whole.  I doubt that will happen
until mid December (I need to advance to candidacy some time soon).

....Roy

Re: automake/autoconf/libtool for 2.0

[Rodent of Unusual Size <Ke...@Golux.Com>]

Ben Laurie wrote:
> 
> Roy T. Fielding wrote:
> > (I need to advance to candidacy some time soon).
> 
> WTF is candidacy?

Herr Doktor Fielding won't need to buy beer nor dinner for
*anyone*. ;-D  (That's a smiley, people!)

#ken	P-)}

Ken Coar                    <http://Web.Golux.Com/coar/>
Apache Group member         <http://www.apache.org/>
"Apache Server for Dummies" <http://Web.Golux.Com/coar/ASFD/>

Re: automake/autoconf/libtool for 2.0

[Ben Laurie <be...@algroup.co.uk>]

Roy T. Fielding wrote:
> (I need to advance to candidacy some time soon).

WTF is candidacy?

Cheers,

Ben.

-- 
Ben Laurie            |Phone: +44 (181) 735 0686| Apache Group member
Freelance Consultant  |Fax:   +44 (181) 735 0689|http://www.apache.org/
and Technical Director|Email: ben@algroup.co.uk |
A.L. Digital Ltd,     |Apache-SSL author     http://www.apache-ssl.org/
London, England.      |"Apache: TDG" http://www.ora.com/catalog/apache/

Re: automake/autoconf/libtool for 2.0

[Rasmus Lerdorf <ra...@lerdorf.on.ca>]

> >I think we have plenty of autoconf experience here.  I don't think it will
> >be a problem getting this done in 2.0.  And in fact, I'd like to propose
> >that we don't make it an autoconf system but rather an automake/libtool
> >system.  Seeing a configure.in.in file is probably going to make a few
> 
> Yep, that was pretty much agreed to long ago, though I've never seen a
> configure.in.in file (automake uses configure.in and Makefile.am).
> I can set it up, but not until I can put enough free hours together
> to really understand the 2.0 package as a whole.  I doubt that will happen
> until mid December (I need to advance to candidacy some time soon).

True, configure.in.in is something we are using locally here.  I forgot
about that.  Basically we are pre-processing configure.in with the
following:

makefiles=`echo ext/*/Makefile.am | sed -e 's/\.am//g'`
sed -e "s#@@EXT_MAKEFILES@@#$makefiles#" configure.in.in > configure.in

And then in configure.in.in we have:

AC_OUTPUT(libphp3.module config.h build-defs.h \
    Makefile contrib/Makefile \
    lib/Makefile lib/regex/Makefile \
    main/Makefile os/Makefile sapi/Makefile \
    ext/Makefile ext/mkextlib @@EXT_MAKEFILES@@,...

This allows us to add new extensions (modules) to the system without
having to modify configure.in to tell it about these new modules.

I think for Apache we would need something similar.

-Rasmus