You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@apr.apache.org by David Reid <dr...@jetnet.co.uk> on 2001/01/04 16:44:45 UTC
apr-util build
The build of apr-util is broken on BSDi (needs gmake to build) so I guess we
need to move over Sascha's fix from Apache? Should it be neccesary though?
Sascha?
david
Re: apr-util build
Posted by David Reid <dr...@jetnet.co.uk>.
Well, the BSDi fix that Greg applied works fine! So, APR, apr-util and
Apache are now building on BSDi again :)
david
----- Original Message -----
From: "Greg Stein" <gs...@lyra.org>
To: <de...@apr.apache.org>
Sent: Thursday, January 04, 2001 8:03 PM
Subject: Re: apr-util build
> On Thu, Jan 04, 2001 at 07:48:29PM +0100, Sascha Schumann wrote:
> > On Thu, 4 Jan 2001, Greg Stein wrote:
> >
> > > [ david misfired, and this went straight to me; bringing back to the
list ]
> > >
> > > Sascha said this wasn't needed on BSDs, but David says "yes".
> >
> > What I said was this:
> >
> > All BSDs, **except** BSD/OS.
>
> I didn't know that BSD/OS == BSDi. *shrug*
>
> >...
> > fixed in BSD/OS sooner than later. In the mean-time, the
> > remaining four BSD/OS users (one has just passed away :-) can
> > use gmake which seems to be installed by default.
>
> I'm with Ryan: we should just work on the various platforms. It is no big
> deal to support this.
>
> > > Seem reasonable?
> >
> > AC_OUTPUT and the generated dozens of sed operations and
> > multiple sed invocations are slow and ugly. I'd prefer to
> > drop BSD/OS make support for now and tell BSD/OS users to use
> > gmake.
>
> I've never been too concerned with that speed. Certainly, it doesn't
matter
> much for APRUTIL because it has a very simple configure (thankfully, APR
> takes care of the bulk). I can see the benefit for Apache, but even
then...
> it isn't like I run configure every hour and want it to scream. Hell...
the
> bulk of the time is in the tests -- not the output.
>
> IOW, I find the AC_OUTPUT replacement scheme used by httpd to be of
marginal
> benefit.
>
> Cheers,
> -g
>
> --
> Greg Stein, http://www.lyra.org/
>
Re: apr-util build
Posted by Greg Stein <gs...@lyra.org>.
On Thu, Jan 04, 2001 at 07:48:29PM +0100, Sascha Schumann wrote:
> On Thu, 4 Jan 2001, Greg Stein wrote:
>
> > [ david misfired, and this went straight to me; bringing back to the list ]
> >
> > Sascha said this wasn't needed on BSDs, but David says "yes".
>
> What I said was this:
>
> All BSDs, **except** BSD/OS.
I didn't know that BSD/OS == BSDi. *shrug*
>...
> fixed in BSD/OS sooner than later. In the mean-time, the
> remaining four BSD/OS users (one has just passed away :-) can
> use gmake which seems to be installed by default.
I'm with Ryan: we should just work on the various platforms. It is no big
deal to support this.
> > Seem reasonable?
>
> AC_OUTPUT and the generated dozens of sed operations and
> multiple sed invocations are slow and ugly. I'd prefer to
> drop BSD/OS make support for now and tell BSD/OS users to use
> gmake.
I've never been too concerned with that speed. Certainly, it doesn't matter
much for APRUTIL because it has a very simple configure (thankfully, APR
takes care of the bulk). I can see the benefit for Apache, but even then...
it isn't like I run configure every hour and want it to scream. Hell... the
bulk of the time is in the tests -- not the output.
IOW, I find the AC_OUTPUT replacement scheme used by httpd to be of marginal
benefit.
Cheers,
-g
--
Greg Stein, http://www.lyra.org/
Re: apr-util build
Posted by Greg Stein <gs...@lyra.org>.
I'll fix it (momentarily) in the way that I described earlier. It would take
just as long to do that vs. adding some logic to call bsd_makefile.
Cheers,
-g
On Thu, Jan 04, 2001 at 07:42:25PM -0000, David Reid wrote:
> Grrr, I hate reply-all vs reply...
>
> I'm not sure if gmake is installed. I need it for Postgresql which is why
> it's on most of my systems (the fact I NEED it bugs me).
>
> I agree this should be fixed on BSDi and have expressed that a few times to
> various people. In the mean time, back in the here and now, I still can't
> build apr-util on BSDi. Until it's fixed can we move Sascha's fix? I'll
> add a note in the STAUS file to try and remind us to remove it once it's
> fixed!
>
> david
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Sascha Schumann" <sa...@schumann.cx>
> To: <rb...@covalent.net>
> Cc: "Greg Stein" <gs...@lyra.org>; <de...@apr.apache.org>
> Sent: Thursday, January 04, 2001 6:54 PM
> Subject: Re: apr-util build
>
>
> > On Thu, 4 Jan 2001 rbb@covalent.net wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > > > Seem reasonable?
> > > >
> > > > AC_OUTPUT and the generated dozens of sed operations and
> > > > multiple sed invocations are slow and ugly. I'd prefer to
> > > > drop BSD/OS make support for now and tell BSD/OS users to use
> > > > gmake.
> > >
> > > I am absolutely against forcing anybody to use a specific version of
> make
> > > for Apache.
> >
> > Great! Then join me in my effort to convince BSDi to fix
> > their make. Jordan seems to be on vacation until tomorrow,
> > our new contact at BSDi is Mike Smith now.
> >
> > - Sascha
> >
> >
--
Greg Stein, http://www.lyra.org/
Re: apr-util build
Posted by David Reid <dr...@jetnet.co.uk>.
Grrr, I hate reply-all vs reply...
I'm not sure if gmake is installed. I need it for Postgresql which is why
it's on most of my systems (the fact I NEED it bugs me).
I agree this should be fixed on BSDi and have expressed that a few times to
various people. In the mean time, back in the here and now, I still can't
build apr-util on BSDi. Until it's fixed can we move Sascha's fix? I'll
add a note in the STAUS file to try and remind us to remove it once it's
fixed!
david
----- Original Message -----
From: "Sascha Schumann" <sa...@schumann.cx>
To: <rb...@covalent.net>
Cc: "Greg Stein" <gs...@lyra.org>; <de...@apr.apache.org>
Sent: Thursday, January 04, 2001 6:54 PM
Subject: Re: apr-util build
> On Thu, 4 Jan 2001 rbb@covalent.net wrote:
>
> >
> > > > Seem reasonable?
> > >
> > > AC_OUTPUT and the generated dozens of sed operations and
> > > multiple sed invocations are slow and ugly. I'd prefer to
> > > drop BSD/OS make support for now and tell BSD/OS users to use
> > > gmake.
> >
> > I am absolutely against forcing anybody to use a specific version of
make
> > for Apache.
>
> Great! Then join me in my effort to convince BSDi to fix
> their make. Jordan seems to be on vacation until tomorrow,
> our new contact at BSDi is Mike Smith now.
>
> - Sascha
>
>
Re: apr-util build
Posted by rb...@covalent.net.
Feel free to put my name and copy me on all messages. If I have anything
to add, I will. :-)
Ryan
On Thu, 4 Jan 2001, Sascha Schumann wrote:
> On Thu, 4 Jan 2001 rbb@covalent.net wrote:
>
> >
> > > > Seem reasonable?
> > >
> > > AC_OUTPUT and the generated dozens of sed operations and
> > > multiple sed invocations are slow and ugly. I'd prefer to
> > > drop BSD/OS make support for now and tell BSD/OS users to use
> > > gmake.
> >
> > I am absolutely against forcing anybody to use a specific version of make
> > for Apache.
>
> Great! Then join me in my effort to convince BSDi to fix
> their make. Jordan seems to be on vacation until tomorrow,
> our new contact at BSDi is Mike Smith now.
>
> - Sascha
>
>
_______________________________________________________________________________
Ryan Bloom rbb@apache.org
406 29th St.
San Francisco, CA 94131
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Re: apr-util build
Posted by Sascha Schumann <sa...@schumann.cx>.
On Thu, 4 Jan 2001 rbb@covalent.net wrote:
>
> > > Seem reasonable?
> >
> > AC_OUTPUT and the generated dozens of sed operations and
> > multiple sed invocations are slow and ugly. I'd prefer to
> > drop BSD/OS make support for now and tell BSD/OS users to use
> > gmake.
>
> I am absolutely against forcing anybody to use a specific version of make
> for Apache.
Great! Then join me in my effort to convince BSDi to fix
their make. Jordan seems to be on vacation until tomorrow,
our new contact at BSDi is Mike Smith now.
- Sascha
Re: apr-util build
Posted by rb...@covalent.net.
> > Seem reasonable?
>
> AC_OUTPUT and the generated dozens of sed operations and
> multiple sed invocations are slow and ugly. I'd prefer to
> drop BSD/OS make support for now and tell BSD/OS users to use
> gmake.
I am absolutely against forcing anybody to use a specific version of make
for Apache.
Ryan
_______________________________________________________________________________
Ryan Bloom rbb@apache.org
406 29th St.
San Francisco, CA 94131
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Re: apr-util build
Posted by Sascha Schumann <sa...@schumann.cx>.
On Thu, 4 Jan 2001, Greg Stein wrote:
> [ david misfired, and this went straight to me; bringing back to the list ]
>
> Sascha said this wasn't needed on BSDs, but David says "yes".
What I said was this:
All BSDs, **except** BSD/OS.
Remember that thread in late September?
> Somebody figure it out :-)
I've just sent an email to the VP of Open-Source Technology
of BSDi (Jordan K. Hubbard). Hopefully we will get that
fixed in BSD/OS sooner than later. In the mean-time, the
remaining four BSD/OS users (one has just passed away :-) can
use gmake which seems to be installed by default.
> Seem reasonable?
AC_OUTPUT and the generated dozens of sed operations and
multiple sed invocations are slow and ugly. I'd prefer to
drop BSD/OS make support for now and tell BSD/OS users to use
gmake.
- Sascha
Re: apr-util build
Posted by rb...@covalent.net.
> Sascha said this wasn't needed on BSDs, but David says "yes".
>
> Somebody figure it out :-)
>
> Personally, I'd rather avoid the rewrite funkiness and use autoconf
> substituation to insert the correct value -- it feel much more reliable to
> me.
>
> For example... Makefile.in:
>
> @INCLUDE_RULES@
>
> Makefile on most systems:
>
> include $(top_builddir)/build/rules.mk
>
> Makefile on BSDi systems:
>
> .include "$(top_builddir)/build/rules.mk"
>
>
> Seem reasonable?
Yep, I like it more than how Apache does it. I believe the problem is
that in general this isn't necessary opn BSDs, but it is required on BSDi,
which is what David is using.
Ryan
_______________________________________________________________________________
Ryan Bloom rbb@apache.org
406 29th St.
San Francisco, CA 94131
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Re: apr-util build
Posted by Greg Stein <gs...@lyra.org>.
[ david misfired, and this went straight to me; bringing back to the list ]
Sascha said this wasn't needed on BSDs, but David says "yes".
Somebody figure it out :-)
Personally, I'd rather avoid the rewrite funkiness and use autoconf
substituation to insert the correct value -- it feel much more reliable to
me.
For example... Makefile.in:
@INCLUDE_RULES@
Makefile on most systems:
include $(top_builddir)/build/rules.mk
Makefile on BSDi systems:
.include "$(top_builddir)/build/rules.mk"
Seem reasonable?
Cheers,
-g
On Thu, Jan 04, 2001 at 05:45:13PM -0000, David Reid wrote:
> http://www.apache.org/websrc/viewcvs.cgi/httpd-2.0/build/bsd_makefile
>
> Sascha added this to get the Makefiles in a form that BSDi likes...
>
> david
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Greg Stein" <gs...@lyra.org>
> To: "APR Development List" <de...@apr.apache.org>
> Sent: Thursday, January 04, 2001 5:41 PM
> Subject: Re: apr-util build
>
>
> > On Thu, Jan 04, 2001 at 03:44:45PM -0000, David Reid wrote:
> > > The build of apr-util is broken on BSDi (needs gmake to build) so I
> guess we
> > > need to move over Sascha's fix from Apache? Should it be neccesary
> though?
> > > Sascha?
> >
> > I don't understand... what part is gmake specific? I don't recall using
> > anything in the makefiles that was specific to gmake.
> >
> > Cheers,
> > -g
> >
> > --
> > Greg Stein, http://www.lyra.org/
> >
--
Greg Stein, http://www.lyra.org/
Re: apr-util build
Posted by Sascha Schumann <sa...@schumann.cx>.
On Thu, 4 Jan 2001 rbb@covalent.net wrote:
> On Thu, 4 Jan 2001, Greg Stein wrote:
>
> > On Thu, Jan 04, 2001 at 03:44:45PM -0000, David Reid wrote:
> > > The build of apr-util is broken on BSDi (needs gmake to build) so I guess we
> > > need to move over Sascha's fix from Apache? Should it be neccesary though?
> > > Sascha?
> >
> > I don't understand... what part is gmake specific? I don't recall using
> > anything in the makefiles that was specific to gmake.
>
> Isn't "include " gmake specific. BSD make uses .include.
Nope, it is not gmake-specific. All BSD makes support
include just fine, except BSD/OS (which has a user-base of
about five people left, IIRC). :-)
- Sascha
Re: apr-util build
Posted by rb...@covalent.net.
On Thu, 4 Jan 2001, Greg Stein wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 04, 2001 at 03:44:45PM -0000, David Reid wrote:
> > The build of apr-util is broken on BSDi (needs gmake to build) so I guess we
> > need to move over Sascha's fix from Apache? Should it be neccesary though?
> > Sascha?
>
> I don't understand... what part is gmake specific? I don't recall using
> anything in the makefiles that was specific to gmake.
Isn't "include " gmake specific. BSD make uses .include.
Ryan
_______________________________________________________________________________
Ryan Bloom rbb@apache.org
406 29th St.
San Francisco, CA 94131
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Re: apr-util build
Posted by Greg Stein <gs...@lyra.org>.
On Thu, Jan 04, 2001 at 03:44:45PM -0000, David Reid wrote:
> The build of apr-util is broken on BSDi (needs gmake to build) so I guess we
> need to move over Sascha's fix from Apache? Should it be neccesary though?
> Sascha?
I don't understand... what part is gmake specific? I don't recall using
anything in the makefiles that was specific to gmake.
Cheers,
-g
--
Greg Stein, http://www.lyra.org/