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 2000/12/09 15:36:31 UTC
BETA binaries...
Are we planning on releasing binaries of the beta? I ask as if we are then
we should make sure the building/installing is working with our new
structure and decide how we install (do we change the directory
structure??).
david
Re: BETA binaries...
Posted by Bill Stoddard <bi...@wstoddard.com>.
> Are we planning on releasing binaries of the beta?
I think that is the idea.
Bill
RE: BETA binaries...
Posted by "William A. Rowe, Jr." <wr...@rowe-clan.net>.
> From: fielding@ebuilt.com [mailto:fielding@ebuilt.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, December 12, 2000 7:33 PM
>
> No, it is a source tree -- any installations should be done in separate
> directories, even if they are under the same root. That is why I changed
> the lib directory name to srclib, so that a lib directory can be created
> under the source root by the "make install" (or win32 equivalent) if
> that is the prefix given by the user. Mixing source and installs is evil.
Cool... that's actually quite good :-)
> This doesn't actually answer the question of what to name the dirs,
> but I hope it describes the rationale behind the new names.
What would a binaries distrib look like? Will it include the srcs at all?
How? (a la 1.3.13 style src/ folder?)
Re: BETA binaries...
Posted by fi...@ebuilt.com.
> If we want a build+binaries directory, Roy's model needs a few changes,
> or some radical overhaul of our defaults. It's a problem burying conf
> in docs, unless we want to have two conf directories (potentially
> confusing, perhaps conf-templates for the docs copy is more appropriate?
> Or move it to httpd-2.0/conf/templates and leave the httpd-2.0/conf
> empty unless it's a binary install?) I'm -1 on changing our default
> conf path to @@serverroot@@/docs/conf for the config files.
No, it is a source tree -- any installations should be done in separate
directories, even if they are under the same root. That is why I changed
the lib directory name to srclib, so that a lib directory can be created
under the source root by the "make install" (or win32 equivalent) if
that is the prefix given by the user. Mixing source and installs is evil.
This doesn't actually answer the question of what to name the dirs,
but I hope it describes the rationale behind the new names.
....Roy
tree layout (was: Re: BETA binaries...)
Posted by Greg Stein <gs...@lyra.org>.
On Sat, Dec 09, 2000 at 09:58:48AM -0600, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
> > From: David Reid [mailto:dreid@jetnet.co.uk]
> > Sent: Saturday, December 09, 2000 8:37 AM
>...
> > I ask as if we are then
> > we should make sure the building/installing is working with our new
> > structure and decide how we install (do we change the directory
> > structure??).
Note that David is talking about the install structure... not the
source/build structure. OtherBill: your email seems to be conflating the two
layouts.
>...
> How does everyone feel about using "D:\Program Files\ASF\Apache" tree?
+1
Although it might be more correct to use ...\ASF\HTTP Server 2.0 for the
path.
Yes, this brings spaces back in, but you get the ASF grouping, and drop the
bit about "Apache" always referring to the web server.
>...
> If we want a build+binaries directory, Roy's model needs a few changes,
> or some radical overhaul of our defaults. It's a problem burying conf
> in docs,
That is the location in the source. You can still install it to the old
location.
>...
> empty unless it's a binary install?) I'm -1 on changing our default
> conf path to @@serverroot@@/docs/conf for the config files.
Nobody has suggested this yet.
> Similar question for cgi-bin, where is that? In docs parallel to the
> cgi-examples? Problem - cgi-examples is about to grow a .bat file as
> a win32 example, and we don't want that in cgi-bin under unix (nor do
> we want the test-cgi shell script in the win32 cgi-bin. Actually, the
> batch file will be test-cgi.bat.)
cgi-bin is toast. We now have "examples". In the install tree, cgi-bin is
located in the same place as always. Whether we install the examples there
or not is debatable.
> We need to decide if we will do an Alias /manual into docs, to allow it
> in eperate magic with the http://server/ index to drop manual into the
> docroot tree. If so, we need to modify the default conf.
I'm not sure why we need to mess around with the manual. What is the issue?
> We can't play the symlink games on win32, so we need to give these
> issues some thought, without too many duplicate trees. I'd like to see
> win32 roll with the unix-proper include, lib, libexec and modules trees
> so it is easier for builders.
I don't see what is needing to change... we have a new build tree, but that
doesn't imply any change whatsoever to the install tree.
Cheers,
-g
--
Greg Stein, http://www.lyra.org/
Re: BETA binaries...
Posted by rb...@covalent.net.
I do a couple every day.
Ryan
On Sat, 9 Dec 2000, David Reid wrote:
> > Installing currently works with the new structure on Unix, but there are
> > some definite issues that need to be finalized soon-ish. I do believe we
> > want to release binaries of the beta.
>
> Has anyone done a binary build of 2.0 recently?
>
> david
>
>
>
_______________________________________________________________________________
Ryan Bloom rbb@apache.org
406 29th St.
San Francisco, CA 94131
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Re: BETA binaries...
Posted by David Reid <dr...@jetnet.co.uk>.
> Installing currently works with the new structure on Unix, but there are
> some definite issues that need to be finalized soon-ish. I do believe we
> want to release binaries of the beta.
Has anyone done a binary build of 2.0 recently?
david
RE: BETA binaries...
Posted by "William A. Rowe, Jr." <wr...@rowe-clan.net>.
> From: rbb@covalent.net [mailto:rbb@covalent.net]
> Sent: Saturday, December 09, 2000 10:20 AM
>
> Installing currently works with the new structure on Unix, but there are
> some definite issues that need to be finalized soon-ish. I do believe we
> want to release binaries of the beta.
Q's then;
targetdir/include/ grows apr/, apr-util/, pcre/ and xml/ folders.
Shouldn't these be collapsed?
Could modules should go under modules, even for .so/.dll's? Since libtool
refuses to kill the lib prefix, perhaps mod_auth_foo becomes lib_auth_foo.so?
(If it's in modules, modules/lib_mod_auth_foo is pretty redundant :-)
What about a libraries folder for true .a/.lib files? On the other side
of the coin, if everyone on unix could stomach this concept, could
we agree to put the library .so/.dll's into the bin/ folder? Win32 will
never locate these unless they are in a bin folder. I'm willing to adopt
every unix practice we can, but this is a roadblock.
Like I suggest, I'm all for making the Win32 tree as close to the Unix
tree as possible, and we Win32 folks have alot of comprimizes to make.
Linking dynamic libs at load time from another folder is not one we could
live with, however. Explicitly loaded .dll's are not an issue, just those
we bind to.
Bill
Re: BETA binaries...
Posted by rb...@covalent.net.
Installing currently works with the new structure on Unix, but there are
some definite issues that need to be finalized soon-ish. I do believe we
want to release binaries of the beta.
Ryan
On Sat, 9 Dec 2000, David Reid wrote:
> Are we planning on releasing binaries of the beta? I ask as if we are then
> we should make sure the building/installing is working with our new
> structure and decide how we install (do we change the directory
> structure??).
>
> david
>
>
_______________________________________________________________________________
Ryan Bloom rbb@apache.org
406 29th St.
San Francisco, CA 94131
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
RE: BETA binaries...
Posted by "William A. Rowe, Jr." <wr...@rowe-clan.net>.
> From: David Reid [mailto:dreid@jetnet.co.uk]
> Sent: Saturday, December 09, 2000 8:37 AM
>
> Are we planning on releasing binaries of the beta?
Silly question ... of course :-)
> I ask as if we are then
> we should make sure the building/installing is working with our new
> structure and decide how we install (do we change the directory
> structure??).
This question really concerns me ... although Ryan was good enough
to share a snapshot build (static, of course, so it doesn't -exactly-
correlate to the win32 model.) I'm seeing just a few issues...
I'd ignore the root path differences between unix and win32
(e.g. /usr/local/bin/apache vs. d:\program files\apache group\apache)
but for the fact that building a 3rd party program is very, very
difficult in Win32, and it comes down to "Apache Group". Most makes
don't like spaces in path/file names (go figure), and the typical,
parallel build trees for win32 imply that 3rd party modules, stored
somewhere like Program Files\Sprocket Co\CoolModule\, should be built
against ..\..\Apache Group\Apache which is simply a problem.
How does everyone feel about using "D:\Program Files\ASF\Apache" tree?
Better than "Apache Group"? We eliminate the space in the relative path,
and more inclusive of the other ASF applications, which can be installed
in another directory of Program Files\ASF. The other simple option is
simply "Program Files\Apache\Apache", but I don't know what the other ASF
projects would prefer.
If we want a build+binaries directory, Roy's model needs a few changes,
or some radical overhaul of our defaults. It's a problem burying conf
in docs, unless we want to have two conf directories (potentially
confusing, perhaps conf-templates for the docs copy is more appropriate?
Or move it to httpd-2.0/conf/templates and leave the httpd-2.0/conf
empty unless it's a binary install?) I'm -1 on changing our default
conf path to @@serverroot@@/docs/conf for the config files.
Similar question for cgi-bin, where is that? In docs parallel to the
cgi-examples? Problem - cgi-examples is about to grow a .bat file as
a win32 example, and we don't want that in cgi-bin under unix (nor do
we want the test-cgi shell script in the win32 cgi-bin. Actually, the
batch file will be test-cgi.bat.)
We need to decide if we will do an Alias /manual into docs, to allow it
in eperate magic with the http://server/ index to drop manual into the
docroot tree. If so, we need to modify the default conf.
We can't play the symlink games on win32, so we need to give these
issues some thought, without too many duplicate trees. I'd like to see
win32 roll with the unix-proper include, lib, libexec and modules trees
so it is easier for builders.
More thoughts anyone?