You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@httpd.apache.org by David Reid <dr...@jetnet.co.uk> on 2000/09/20 15:24:51 UTC
BSDi build?
I'm trying to build Apache-2.0 on BSDi 4.01 and I'm getting this...
www$ sh ./buildconf
buildconf: checking installation...
buildconf: autoconf version 2.13 (ok)
buildconf: libtool version 1.3.5 (ok)
"build/build2.mk", line 57: Need an operator
Fatal errors encountered -- cannot continue
*** Error code 1
Stop.
www$
I've installed libtool-1.3.5 and m4-1.4 but still get it. Any ideas or am I
simply being thick???
david
"I try never to get involved in my own life,
it's way too complicated."
http://www.david-reid.com
Re: BSDi build?
Posted by David Reid <dr...@jetnet.co.uk>.
OK. After switching to gmake all went well and server seems to be running
OK. I'm off to Verona and Glasgow over the next few days so I'll leave it
while I'm away.
david
----- Original Message -----
From: "David Reid" <dr...@jetnet.co.uk>
To: <ne...@apache.org>; <dr...@jetnet.co.uk>
Sent: Wednesday, September 20, 2000 4:02 PM
Subject: Re: BSDi build?
> OK, so using
>
> MAKE=gmake sh ./buildconf
>
> seems to work.
>
> david
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "David Reid" <dr...@jetnet.co.uk>
> To: <ne...@apache.org>
> Sent: Wednesday, September 20, 2000 4:09 PM
> Subject: Re: BSDi build?
>
>
> > >
> > > BSDi has forked their version of make too early from the main
> > > BSD, so they are lacking the sysv include option. Guess we
> > > could work around that, but then it is BSDi only.
> > >
> > > - Sascha
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > Oh, OK so what's the workaround? I mean I'd like to be able to build on
> > BSDi at some point...
> >
> > david
> >
> > "I never get involved in my own life, it's way
> > too complicated."
> >
> >
>
>
Re: BSDi build?
Posted by Sascha Schumann <sa...@schumann.cx>.
On Fri, 22 Sep 2000, Manoj Kasichainula wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 22, 2000 at 12:28:25AM -0700, Marc Slemko wrote:
> > On Fri, 22 Sep 2000, Manoj Kasichainula wrote:
> > > OK. Let me rephrase that. Does a BSDi system have gmake installed in
> > > standard configurations?
> >
> > Yes, assuming the admin doesn't decide not to install it.
> >
> > I still don't like the idea of requiring it though since this isn't about
> > BSDI but about portability in general and there are a whole lot of other
> > platforms around, but...
>
> So, do makes like this exist on any other relevant platforms? I
> suspect they do.
The lack of evidence does not confirm that suspection. PHP
has been installed on a wide variety of systems and we only
have a few reports (2 or 3) about this problem from BSDI
users. But, of course, there might be some esoteric systems
which chose to not support the include directive.
BSDi seem to have made a deliberate decision: Either they
did not merge in the changes from 4.4BSD Lite 1 or they
disabled the SYSVINCLUDE option. All other derivatives
started to adopt the SYSVINCLUDE option quickly:
NetBSD 0.9 (Mar 1993) no [1]
FreeBSD 1.0 (Jun 1993) no [1]
386BSD (Oct 1993) no [1]
4.4BSD Lite 1 (Apr 1994) [2]
FreeBSD 2.0 (May 1994) yes [3]
NetBSD 1.0 (Nov 1994) yes [1]
While the UNIX history graph[4] implies that 4.4BSD Lite 1
was merged into BSD/OS 2.0, I have not found any textual
confirmation.
If we take the history graph as a base, all recent OS with
one exception are known to support the include directive
(AIX, HP/UX, GNU, UnixWare, OpenServer, Tru64, IRIX, Solaris,
Mac OS X, *BSD).
[1] ftp://gatekeeper.dec.com/rom/ (see the BSDisc_* dirs)
[2] http://minnie.cs.adfa.edu.au/BSD-info/Textfiles/4.4BSD.txt
[3] http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/cvsweb.cgi/src/usr.bin/make/parse.c
[4] http://perso.wanadoo.fr/levenez/unix/history.htm
- Sascha
Re: BSDi build?
Posted by Manoj Kasichainula <ma...@io.com>.
On Fri, Sep 22, 2000 at 12:28:25AM -0700, Marc Slemko wrote:
> On Fri, 22 Sep 2000, Manoj Kasichainula wrote:
> > OK. Let me rephrase that. Does a BSDi system have gmake installed in
> > standard configurations?
>
> Yes, assuming the admin doesn't decide not to install it.
>
> I still don't like the idea of requiring it though since this isn't about
> BSDI but about portability in general and there are a whole lot of other
> platforms around, but...
So, do makes like this exist on any other relevant platforms? I
suspect they do.
Re: BSDi build?
Posted by Marc Slemko <ma...@znep.com>.
On Fri, 22 Sep 2000, Manoj Kasichainula wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 21, 2000 at 08:04:42AM -0700, rbb@covalent.net wrote:
> > On Wed, 20 Sep 2000, Manoj Kasichainula wrote:
> > > Does BSDi ship with gmake in addition to its own? If so, then gmake
> > > isn't really an extra requirement.
> >
> > Sure it is. Whether it ships with it or not, it is required that it is
> > installed now.
>
> OK. Let me rephrase that. Does a BSDi system have gmake installed in
> standard configurations?
Yes, assuming the admin doesn't decide not to install it.
I still don't like the idea of requiring it though since this isn't about
BSDI but about portability in general and there are a whole lot of other
platforms around, but...
Re: BSDi build?
Posted by David Reid <dr...@jetnet.co.uk>.
Sascha,
Altered build2.mk to reflect
.include "$(BUILD_BASE)/generated_lists"
buildconf now works, but the build fails again using 'make'. What else
do you need me to test?
david
----- Original Message -----
From: "David Reid" <dr...@jetnet.co.uk>
To: <ne...@apache.org>
Sent: Friday, September 22, 2000 9:39 PM
Subject: Re: BSDi build?
> I'll make the changes and test tomorrow sometime.
>
> Just back from Glasgow...
>
> david
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Sascha Schumann" <sa...@schumann.cx>
> To: <ne...@apache.org>
> Sent: Friday, September 22, 2000 5:05 PM
> Subject: Re: BSDi build?
>
>
> > On Fri, 22 Sep 2000 rbb@covalent.net wrote:
> >
> > > On Fri, 22 Sep 2000, Sascha Schumann wrote:
> > >
> > > > > It doesn't matter. We have now seen two people claim that they
> can't
> > > > > build 2.0 on a machine that builds 1.3. That is not acceptable.
> > > >
> > > > What is the 2nd machine?
> > >
> > > David Reid reported this on new-httpd a few days ago on his BSDi box,
> and
> > > we have a bug in the BugDB. The bug number is 6553 by
> > > seebs@bsdi.com. David's original message is:
> > >
> > > <00...@jetnet.co.uk>
> >
> > Ok, two instances of the same problem.
> >
> > BSD/OS make does not recognize "include filename", but it
> > recognizes ".include "filename"".
> >
> > David, can you please check whether this works on BSD/OS?
> >
> > $ cat >fixup-makefile<<X
> > tmpfile=`mktemp /tmp/$0.fixupx` || exit 1
> > for i in $@; do
> > sed 's/^include \(.*\)/.include "\1"/' $i >$tmpfile \
> > && cp $tmpfile $i
> > done
> > rm -f $tmpfile
> > exit 0
> > X
> > $ find . -name Makefile|xargs sh fixup-makefile
> >
> > - Sascha
> >
> >
>
>
Re: BSDi build?
Posted by David Reid <dr...@jetnet.co.uk>.
I'll make the changes and test tomorrow sometime.
Just back from Glasgow...
david
----- Original Message -----
From: "Sascha Schumann" <sa...@schumann.cx>
To: <ne...@apache.org>
Sent: Friday, September 22, 2000 5:05 PM
Subject: Re: BSDi build?
> On Fri, 22 Sep 2000 rbb@covalent.net wrote:
>
> > On Fri, 22 Sep 2000, Sascha Schumann wrote:
> >
> > > > It doesn't matter. We have now seen two people claim that they
can't
> > > > build 2.0 on a machine that builds 1.3. That is not acceptable.
> > >
> > > What is the 2nd machine?
> >
> > David Reid reported this on new-httpd a few days ago on his BSDi box,
and
> > we have a bug in the BugDB. The bug number is 6553 by
> > seebs@bsdi.com. David's original message is:
> >
> > <00...@jetnet.co.uk>
>
> Ok, two instances of the same problem.
>
> BSD/OS make does not recognize "include filename", but it
> recognizes ".include "filename"".
>
> David, can you please check whether this works on BSD/OS?
>
> $ cat >fixup-makefile<<X
> tmpfile=`mktemp /tmp/$0.fixupx` || exit 1
> for i in $@; do
> sed 's/^include \(.*\)/.include "\1"/' $i >$tmpfile \
> && cp $tmpfile $i
> done
> rm -f $tmpfile
> exit 0
> X
> $ find . -name Makefile|xargs sh fixup-makefile
>
> - Sascha
>
>
Re: BSDi build?
Posted by Sascha Schumann <sa...@schumann.cx>.
On Fri, 22 Sep 2000 rbb@covalent.net wrote:
> On Fri, 22 Sep 2000, Sascha Schumann wrote:
>
> > > It doesn't matter. We have now seen two people claim that they can't
> > > build 2.0 on a machine that builds 1.3. That is not acceptable.
> >
> > What is the 2nd machine?
>
> David Reid reported this on new-httpd a few days ago on his BSDi box, and
> we have a bug in the BugDB. The bug number is 6553 by
> seebs@bsdi.com. David's original message is:
>
> <00...@jetnet.co.uk>
Ok, two instances of the same problem.
BSD/OS make does not recognize "include filename", but it
recognizes ".include "filename"".
David, can you please check whether this works on BSD/OS?
$ cat >fixup-makefile<<X
tmpfile=`mktemp /tmp/$0.fixupx` || exit 1
for i in $@; do
sed 's/^include \(.*\)/.include "\1"/' $i >$tmpfile \
&& cp $tmpfile $i
done
rm -f $tmpfile
exit 0
X
$ find . -name Makefile|xargs sh fixup-makefile
- Sascha
Re: BSDi build?
Posted by rb...@covalent.net.
On Fri, 22 Sep 2000, Sascha Schumann wrote:
> > It doesn't matter. We have now seen two people claim that they can't
> > build 2.0 on a machine that builds 1.3. That is not acceptable.
>
> What is the 2nd machine?
David Reid reported this on new-httpd a few days ago on his BSDi box, and
we have a bug in the BugDB. The bug number is 6553 by
seebs@bsdi.com. David's original message is:
<00...@jetnet.co.uk>
Ryan
_______________________________________________________________________________
Ryan Bloom rbb@apache.org
406 29th St.
San Francisco, CA 94131
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Re: BSDi build?
Posted by Sascha Schumann <sa...@schumann.cx>.
On Fri, 22 Sep 2000 rbb@covalent.net wrote:
> On Fri, 22 Sep 2000, Manoj Kasichainula wrote:
>
> > On Thu, Sep 21, 2000 at 08:04:42AM -0700, rbb@covalent.net wrote:
> > > On Wed, 20 Sep 2000, Manoj Kasichainula wrote:
> > > > Does BSDi ship with gmake in addition to its own? If so, then gmake
> > > > isn't really an extra requirement.
> > >
> > > Sure it is. Whether it ships with it or not, it is required that it is
> > > installed now.
> >
> > OK. Let me rephrase that. Does a BSDi system have gmake installed in
> > standard configurations?
>
> It doesn't matter. We have now seen two people claim that they can't
> build 2.0 on a machine that builds 1.3. That is not acceptable.
What is the 2nd machine?
- Sascha
Re: BSDi build?
Posted by rb...@covalent.net.
On Fri, 22 Sep 2000, Manoj Kasichainula wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 21, 2000 at 08:04:42AM -0700, rbb@covalent.net wrote:
> > On Wed, 20 Sep 2000, Manoj Kasichainula wrote:
> > > Does BSDi ship with gmake in addition to its own? If so, then gmake
> > > isn't really an extra requirement.
> >
> > Sure it is. Whether it ships with it or not, it is required that it is
> > installed now.
>
> OK. Let me rephrase that. Does a BSDi system have gmake installed in
> standard configurations?
It doesn't matter. We have now seen two people claim that they can't
build 2.0 on a machine that builds 1.3. That is not acceptable.
Ryan
_______________________________________________________________________________
Ryan Bloom rbb@apache.org
406 29th St.
San Francisco, CA 94131
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Re: BSDi build?
Posted by Manoj Kasichainula <ma...@io.com>.
On Thu, Sep 21, 2000 at 08:04:42AM -0700, rbb@covalent.net wrote:
> On Wed, 20 Sep 2000, Manoj Kasichainula wrote:
> > Does BSDi ship with gmake in addition to its own? If so, then gmake
> > isn't really an extra requirement.
>
> Sure it is. Whether it ships with it or not, it is required that it is
> installed now.
OK. Let me rephrase that. Does a BSDi system have gmake installed in
standard configurations?
Re: BSDi build?
Posted by rb...@covalent.net.
On Wed, 20 Sep 2000, Manoj Kasichainula wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 20, 2000 at 12:46:10PM -0700, rbb@covalent.net wrote:
> > On Wed, 20 Sep 2000, Tony Finch wrote:
> > > Peter Seebach just submitted a bug about this exact issue (#6553). Are
> > > we going to fix it properly or do we just require that BSDi people use
> > > gmake? I don't particularly want to dig into the config stuff myself...
> >
> > We need to fix this properly. The only requirement Apache has ever made
> > with regard to the build environment is that we have an ANSI
> > compiler. With 2.0 we need to stick with that rule. The only people who
> > need more than an ANSI compiler to build Apache, are people modifying the
> > configuration scripts.
>
> Does BSDi ship with gmake in addition to its own? If so, then gmake
> isn't really an extra requirement.
Sure it is. Whether it ships with it or not, it is required that it is
installed now. With Apache 1.3, it did not need to be installed. The
fact that there is a machine that can compile Apache 1.3 but not 2.0
because of the make version is bogus IMHO.
Ryan
_______________________________________________________________________________
Ryan Bloom rbb@apache.org
406 29th St.
San Francisco, CA 94131
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Re: BSDi build?
Posted by Manoj Kasichainula <ma...@io.com>.
On Wed, Sep 20, 2000 at 12:46:10PM -0700, rbb@covalent.net wrote:
> On Wed, 20 Sep 2000, Tony Finch wrote:
> > Peter Seebach just submitted a bug about this exact issue (#6553). Are
> > we going to fix it properly or do we just require that BSDi people use
> > gmake? I don't particularly want to dig into the config stuff myself...
>
> We need to fix this properly. The only requirement Apache has ever made
> with regard to the build environment is that we have an ANSI
> compiler. With 2.0 we need to stick with that rule. The only people who
> need more than an ANSI compiler to build Apache, are people modifying the
> configuration scripts.
Does BSDi ship with gmake in addition to its own? If so, then gmake
isn't really an extra requirement.
Re: BSDi build?
Posted by rb...@covalent.net.
On Wed, 20 Sep 2000, Tony Finch wrote:
> David Reid <dr...@jetnet.co.uk> wrote:
> >OK, so using
> >
> >MAKE=gmake sh ./buildconf
> >
> >seems to work.
>
> Peter Seebach just submitted a bug about this exact issue (#6553). Are
> we going to fix it properly or do we just require that BSDi people use
> gmake? I don't particularly want to dig into the config stuff myself...
We need to fix this properly. The only requirement Apache has ever made
with regard to the build environment is that we have an ANSI
compiler. With 2.0 we need to stick with that rule. The only people who
need more than an ANSI compiler to build Apache, are people modifying the
configuration scripts.
Ryan
_______________________________________________________________________________
Ryan Bloom rbb@apache.org
406 29th St.
San Francisco, CA 94131
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Re: BSDi build?
Posted by Tony Finch <do...@dotat.at>.
David Reid <dr...@jetnet.co.uk> wrote:
>OK, so using
>
>MAKE=gmake sh ./buildconf
>
>seems to work.
Peter Seebach just submitted a bug about this exact issue (#6553). Are
we going to fix it properly or do we just require that BSDi people use
gmake? I don't particularly want to dig into the config stuff myself...
Tony.
--
en oeccget g mtcaa f.a.n.finch
v spdlkishrhtewe y dot@dotat.at
eatp o v eiti i d. fanf@covalent.net
Re: BSDi build?
Posted by David Reid <dr...@jetnet.co.uk>.
OK, so using
MAKE=gmake sh ./buildconf
seems to work.
david
----- Original Message -----
From: "David Reid" <dr...@jetnet.co.uk>
To: <ne...@apache.org>
Sent: Wednesday, September 20, 2000 4:09 PM
Subject: Re: BSDi build?
> >
> > BSDi has forked their version of make too early from the main
> > BSD, so they are lacking the sysv include option. Guess we
> > could work around that, but then it is BSDi only.
> >
> > - Sascha
> >
> >
> >
> Oh, OK so what's the workaround? I mean I'd like to be able to build on
> BSDi at some point...
>
> david
>
> "I never get involved in my own life, it's way
> too complicated."
>
>
Re: BSDi build?
Posted by David Reid <dr...@jetnet.co.uk>.
>
> BSDi has forked their version of make too early from the main
> BSD, so they are lacking the sysv include option. Guess we
> could work around that, but then it is BSDi only.
>
> - Sascha
>
>
>
Oh, OK so what's the workaround? I mean I'd like to be able to build on
BSDi at some point...
david
"I never get involved in my own life, it's way
too complicated."
Re: BSDi build?
Posted by Sascha Schumann <sa...@schumann.cx>.
On Wed, 20 Sep 2000, David Reid wrote:
> I'm trying to build Apache-2.0 on BSDi 4.01 and I'm getting this...
>
> www$ sh ./buildconf
> buildconf: checking installation...
> buildconf: autoconf version 2.13 (ok)
> buildconf: libtool version 1.3.5 (ok)
> "build/build2.mk", line 57: Need an operator
> Fatal errors encountered -- cannot continue
> *** Error code 1
>
> Stop.
> www$
>
> I've installed libtool-1.3.5 and m4-1.4 but still get it. Any ideas or am I
> simply being thick???
>
> david
>
> "I try never to get involved in my own life,
> it's way too complicated."
>
> http://www.david-reid.com
>
BSDi has forked their version of make too early from the main
BSD, so they are lacking the sysv include option. Guess we
could work around that, but then it is BSDi only.
- Sascha