You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@httpd.apache.org by Daniel Stone <da...@sfarc.net> on 2001/09/26 13:18:55 UTC
APR and apache2 includes should be different
Hi all,
Currently libapr and apache2 are designed to put their includes into the
one directory. For example:
apxs2 -q INCLUDEDIR, will return /usr/include/apache2, in our Debian
package.
The problem is, we have libapr-dev as well, with {apr,APR}*, from the
include directory, with its includes in /usr/include/libapr. So, apache2
includes go in /usr/include/apache2, in the apache2-dev package, and APR
includes go in /usr/include/libapr, in the libapr-dev package. I find
this vastly preferable for things like xmlvl, which only need APR, not
apache2.
In the short term, we're making both packages use /usr/include/apache2,
to keep things like php4 happy. In the long term, however, I'd like to
propose that apxs2 have two categories, so that:
apxs2 -q AP2INCDIR, returns /usr/include/apache2 (or
/usr/local/apache2/include or whatever)
apxs2 -q APRINCDIR, returns /usr/include/libapr (or
/usr/local/apache2/include or whatever)
apache2 and APR are two different packages; thus they shouldn't have a
common include dir IMHO.
What do you guys think?
:) d
PS: Preliminary packages at http://kabuki.sfarc.net/apache2/, however
please only check them out after 12am AEST (UTC+10).
--
Daniel Stone <da...@sfarc.net>
<erno> hm. I've lost a machine.. literally _lost_. it responds to ping, it
works completely, I just can't figure out where in my apartment it is.
Re: APR and apache2 includes should be different
Posted by Ryan Bloom <rb...@covalent.net>.
Copying dev@apr.apache.org, so that the APR developers know about this.
On Wednesday 26 September 2001 04:18 am, Daniel Stone wrote:
> Hi all,
> Currently libapr and apache2 are designed to put their includes into the
> one directory. For example:
> apxs2 -q INCLUDEDIR, will return /usr/include/apache2, in our Debian
> package.
>
> The problem is, we have libapr-dev as well, with {apr,APR}*, from the
> include directory, with its includes in /usr/include/libapr. So, apache2
> includes go in /usr/include/apache2, in the apache2-dev package, and APR
> includes go in /usr/include/libapr, in the libapr-dev package. I find
> this vastly preferable for things like xmlvl, which only need APR, not
> apache2.
>
> In the short term, we're making both packages use /usr/include/apache2,
> to keep things like php4 happy. In the long term, however, I'd like to
> propose that apxs2 have two categories, so that:
> apxs2 -q AP2INCDIR, returns /usr/include/apache2 (or
> /usr/local/apache2/include or whatever)
> apxs2 -q APRINCDIR, returns /usr/include/libapr (or
> /usr/local/apache2/include or whatever)
>
> apache2 and APR are two different packages; thus they shouldn't have a
> common include dir IMHO.
>
> What do you guys think?
>
> :) d
You are 100% correct. The problem right now, is that APR was developed
with Apache. What we really need to do, is to allow Apache to find APR on
the machine, and just use a previously installed copy of APR. That would
solve this problem completely, and a side-effect would be that we could
easily have two different install locations for the APR headers and libraries.
Ryan
______________________________________________________________
Ryan Bloom rbb@apache.org
Covalent Technologies rbb@covalent.net
--------------------------------------------------------------
Re: APR and apache2 includes should be different
Posted by Ryan Bloom <rb...@covalent.net>.
Copying dev@apr.apache.org, so that the APR developers know about this.
On Wednesday 26 September 2001 04:18 am, Daniel Stone wrote:
> Hi all,
> Currently libapr and apache2 are designed to put their includes into the
> one directory. For example:
> apxs2 -q INCLUDEDIR, will return /usr/include/apache2, in our Debian
> package.
>
> The problem is, we have libapr-dev as well, with {apr,APR}*, from the
> include directory, with its includes in /usr/include/libapr. So, apache2
> includes go in /usr/include/apache2, in the apache2-dev package, and APR
> includes go in /usr/include/libapr, in the libapr-dev package. I find
> this vastly preferable for things like xmlvl, which only need APR, not
> apache2.
>
> In the short term, we're making both packages use /usr/include/apache2,
> to keep things like php4 happy. In the long term, however, I'd like to
> propose that apxs2 have two categories, so that:
> apxs2 -q AP2INCDIR, returns /usr/include/apache2 (or
> /usr/local/apache2/include or whatever)
> apxs2 -q APRINCDIR, returns /usr/include/libapr (or
> /usr/local/apache2/include or whatever)
>
> apache2 and APR are two different packages; thus they shouldn't have a
> common include dir IMHO.
>
> What do you guys think?
>
> :) d
You are 100% correct. The problem right now, is that APR was developed
with Apache. What we really need to do, is to allow Apache to find APR on
the machine, and just use a previously installed copy of APR. That would
solve this problem completely, and a side-effect would be that we could
easily have two different install locations for the APR headers and libraries.
Ryan
______________________________________________________________
Ryan Bloom rbb@apache.org
Covalent Technologies rbb@covalent.net
--------------------------------------------------------------