You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@apr.apache.org by Graham Leggett <mi...@sharp.fm> on 2004/07/02 02:21:45 UTC
apr-iconv RPM spec file + supporting changes
Hi all,
The attached patch attempts to bring apr_iconv more in line with the
build structure of apr and apr-util, and includes a spec file.
- The Makefile.in has been patched to prepend ${DESTDIR} onto the output
paths on make install.
- The ./buildconf has been altered to create the apr-iconv.spec file
from apr-iconv.spec.in in the same way it is done on apr and apr-util.
- A spec file has been added.
- build/get-version.sh has been added from apr/apr-util to be consistent
(and make the spec file work)
For some reason apr-iconv's make all target does not do anything on my
platform (Linux RHEL3), but this is a separate issue unrelated to the
changes above.
Comments?
Regards,
Graham
--
Re: apr-iconv RPM spec file + supporting changes
Posted by Graham Leggett <mi...@sharp.fm>.
Joe Orton wrote:
> Old Unixes and non-Unixes don't have iconv(), so yes, there is certainly
> a set of platforms on which RPM will build but there is no native
> iconv(). It's not a big deal, just so long as you're aware that you
> probably don't *need* apr-iconv, and it's probably better to use the
> native iconv() where available.
Cool.
I am running into a hassle testing this though. On my platform (Linux)
apr-iconv isn't needed, and so make does nothing. This causes "make
install" to bomb out when an attempt is made to build an RPM.
What would be far more user friendly is if a suitable friendly error
message (eg "this platform already supports iconv(), and so apr-iconv is
not required and cannot be built") be output on make so that it doesn't
fail in a strange way.
Any ideas on how to achieve this?
Regards,
Graham
--
Re: apr-iconv RPM spec file + supporting changes
Posted by Joe Orton <jo...@redhat.com>.
On Fri, Jul 02, 2004 at 11:17:00AM +0200, Graham Leggett wrote:
> Joe Orton wrote:
>
> >Dumb question - why a spec file? What platform do you want to run this
> >on which doesn't have a native iconv()? You only need apr-iconv on
> >platforms which don't have an iconv() at all.
>
> Ok, I was not aware of that.
>
> Which platforms require iconv()? In other words, are there any Unix-like
> platforms out there (Solaris, Darwin, any others?) that might support
> RPM _and_ require iconv()?
Old Unixes and non-Unixes don't have iconv(), so yes, there is certainly
a set of platforms on which RPM will build but there is no native
iconv(). It's not a big deal, just so long as you're aware that you
probably don't *need* apr-iconv, and it's probably better to use the
native iconv() where available.
Regards,
joe
Re: apr-iconv RPM spec file + supporting changes
Posted by Graham Leggett <mi...@sharp.fm>.
Joe Orton wrote:
> Dumb question - why a spec file? What platform do you want to run this
> on which doesn't have a native iconv()? You only need apr-iconv on
> platforms which don't have an iconv() at all.
Ok, I was not aware of that.
Which platforms require iconv()? In other words, are there any Unix-like
platforms out there (Solaris, Darwin, any others?) that might support
RPM _and_ require iconv()?
Regards,
Graham
--
Re: apr-iconv RPM spec file + supporting changes
Posted by Joe Orton <jo...@redhat.com>.
On Fri, Jul 02, 2004 at 02:21:45AM +0200, Graham Leggett wrote:
> The attached patch attempts to bring apr_iconv more in line with the
> build structure of apr and apr-util, and includes a spec file.
Dumb question - why a spec file? What platform do you want to run this
on which doesn't have a native iconv()? You only need apr-iconv on
platforms which don't have an iconv() at all.
joe