You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to apreq-dev@httpd.apache.org by Joe Schaefer <jo...@sunstarsys.com> on 2002/02/12 21:23:54 UTC
Re: autoconf support?
Jim Winstead <ji...@trainedmonkey.com> writes:
> On Tue, Jan 29, 2002 at 11:05:19AM -0500, Joe Schaefer wrote:
> > Has anyone thought of a fix for the "missing"
> > file? As I reported earlier, it is a symlink
> > to
> >
> > /usr/local/share/autoconf/missing
> >
> > which may or may not exist on the user's filesystem.
> > I have no idea how to fix this problem.
>
> i just didn't run automake correctly when building the distribution.
> (for the record, you need to run 'automake -a -c' for the file to be
> copied into place. i apparently just ran 'automake -a' which just
> creates a symlink.)
What do you think about putting together a test distribution from
the current CVS? That way at least we can test everything out,
including the autoconf support.
--
Joe Schaefer
Re: autoconf support?
Posted by Jim Winstead <ji...@apache.org>.
On Thu, Feb 21, 2002 at 01:15:11AM +0800, Stas Bekman wrote:
> I guess I've missed a portion of this discussion, any reason why these
> aren't under cvs?
because putting generated files under cvs control is silly.
jim
Re: autoconf support?
Posted by Stas Bekman <st...@stason.org>.
Jim Winstead wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 20, 2002 at 03:41:45PM +0800, Stas Bekman wrote:
>
>>Jim Winstead wrote:
>>
>>>give http://www.apache.org/~jimw/libapreq-1.0.tar.gz a spin.
>>>
>>That's the cvs version, right?
>>
>
> no, it is the cvs version + generated files that are not checked
> into cvs. this addresses all the 'problems' you found.
I guess I've missed a portion of this discussion, any reason why these
aren't under cvs?
_____________________________________________________________________
Stas Bekman JAm_pH -- Just Another mod_perl Hacker
http://stason.org/ mod_perl Guide http://perl.apache.org/guide
mailto:stas@stason.org http://ticketmaster.com http://apacheweek.com
http://singlesheaven.com http://perl.apache.org http://perlmonth.com/
Re: autoconf support?
Posted by Jim Winstead <ji...@apache.org>.
On Wed, Feb 20, 2002 at 03:41:45PM +0800, Stas Bekman wrote:
> Jim Winstead wrote:
> >give http://www.apache.org/~jimw/libapreq-1.0.tar.gz a spin.
>
> That's the cvs version, right?
no, it is the cvs version + generated files that are not checked
into cvs. this addresses all the 'problems' you found.
jim
Re: autoconf support?
Posted by Stas Bekman <st...@stason.org>.
Jim Winstead wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 12, 2002 at 03:23:54PM -0500, Joe Schaefer wrote:
>
>>What do you think about putting together a test distribution from
>>the current CVS? That way at least we can test everything out,
>>including the autoconf support.
>>
>
> give http://www.apache.org/~jimw/libapreq-1.0.tar.gz a spin.
>
> i'll make it available on cpan and httpd.apache.org/apreq on thursday
> with a few +1s.
That's the cvs version, right?
If so here are a few problems:
If running 'perl Makefile.PL' after 'make clean':
perl Makefile.PL
Checking if your kit is complete...
Warning: the following files are missing in your kit:
Makefile.in
c/Makefile.in
Please inform the author.
---
INSTALL describes how to build without perl:
To build libapreq without the Makefile.PL, run:
./configure [--with-apache-includes=DIR] && make
but it doesn't work in cvs version, because one needs to run 'autoconf'
to create ./configure. Can we add this note to INSTALL?
nevertheless it fails with:
% ./configure --with-apache-includes=~/httpd/1.3/include
[...]
checking whether ln -s works... (cached) yes
creating ./config.status
creating Makefile
sed: can't read ./Makefile.in: No such file or directory
creating c/Makefile
sed: can't read ./c/Makefile.in: No such file or directory
creating c/libapreq_config.h
c/libapreq_config.h is unchanged
_____________________________________________________________________
Stas Bekman JAm_pH -- Just Another mod_perl Hacker
http://stason.org/ mod_perl Guide http://perl.apache.org/guide
mailto:stas@stason.org http://ticketmaster.com http://apacheweek.com
http://singlesheaven.com http://perl.apache.org http://perlmonth.com/
Re: autoconf support?
Posted by Joe Schaefer <jo...@sunstarsys.com>.
Jim Winstead <ji...@apache.org> writes:
> On Wed, Feb 20, 2002 at 07:55:22PM -0500, Joe Schaefer wrote:
> > It seems to me that all we're really missing is some
> >
> > -version-info 1:0:0
> >
> > setting somewhere.
>
> okay, i added it and updated the tarball at
> http://www.apache.org/~jimw/libapreq-1.0.tar.gz
+1 !!!
All modperl tests passed using the standard perl build process.
One issue that we may want to address now, or perhaps in a future
release- installing the shared libapreq libraries using ./configure
caused a "problem" when I subsequently installed the perl way. What
happened is that Request.so and Cookie.so got linked against the
installed libapreq.so version, NOT the libapreq.a file. When preloading
Apache::Request, I got the following error:
Can't load '[...]/auto/Apache/Request/Request.so' for module
Apache::Request: libapreq.so.1: cannot open shared object file:
No such file or directory at [...]/DynaLoader.pm line 169.
I ran ldd on Request.so, and sure enough it linked
against /usr/local/lib/libapreq.so.1.0.0 instead of the
static libapreq.a. So next I ran ldconfig to get rid of the
above error, and ran the modperl tests again, and everything
passed!
This may give Mac OS/X users a simpler approach to solving their
dynaloading problem with Apache::Cookie and Apache::Request.
--
Joe Schaefer
Re: autoconf support?
Posted by Jim Winstead <ji...@apache.org>.
On Wed, Feb 20, 2002 at 07:55:22PM -0500, Joe Schaefer wrote:
> It seems to me that all we're really missing is some
>
> -version-info 1:0:0
>
> setting somewhere.
okay, i added it and updated the tarball at
http://www.apache.org/~jimw/libapreq-1.0.tar.gz
jim
Re: autoconf support?
Posted by Joe Schaefer <jo...@sunstarsys.com>.
Jim Winstead <ji...@apache.org> writes:
> setting the library version number is described at:
>
> http://sources.redhat.com/autobook/autobook/autobook_88.html#SEC88
>
> as it explains, the number uses on the library is not meant to be
> related to the release version. it's simply used by the runtime loader.
IMO, the point of calling this release of libapreq "version 1.x" is
that we are settling on a fixed C API. That interface *should* match
the major release number. The minor number and age needn't be synced
with the release, but the major number "aka the current interface"
SHOULD. For instance, see
http://sources.redhat.com/autobook/autobook/autobook_91.html#SEC91
It seems to me that all we're really missing is some
-version-info 1:0:0
setting somewhere.
--
Joe Schaefer
Re: autoconf support?
Posted by Jim Winstead <ji...@apache.org>.
setting the library version number is described at:
http://sources.redhat.com/autobook/autobook/autobook_88.html#SEC88
as it explains, the number uses on the library is not meant to be
related to the release version. it's simply used by the runtime loader.
jim
Re: autoconf support?
Posted by Joe Schaefer <jo...@sunstarsys.com>.
Joe Schaefer <jo...@sunstarsys.com> writes:
> It looks like this is building a 0.0.0 version on my box;
> I think it should be 1.0.0; however-
>
> % grep VERSION Makefile
> VERSION = 1.0.0
> distdir = $(PACKAGE)-$(VERSION)
>
> % grep VERSION c/Makefile
> VERSION = 1.0.0
> distdir = $(top_builddir)/$(PACKAGE)-$(VERSION)/$(subdir)
>
> That's got me stumped.
I've made some progress: by changing line 1638 in ltmain.sh
from
set dummy $vinfo 0 0 0
to
set dummy $vinfo 1 0 0
I managed to get a build of libapreq.so.1.0.0. I'm certain
this isn't the right solution, but it fixes the problem.
--
Joe Schaefer
Re: autoconf support?
Posted by Joe Schaefer <jo...@sunstarsys.com>.
Randy Kobes <ra...@theoryx5.uwinnipeg.ca> writes:
> On Tue, 19 Feb 2002, Jim Winstead wrote:
>
> > give http://www.apache.org/~jimw/libapreq-1.0.tar.gz a spin.
> >
> > i'll make it available on cpan and httpd.apache.org/apreq on thursday
> > with a few +1s.
>
> Builds and tests fine on Win32 ActivePerl with the latest
> cvs modperl.
>
+0
% ./configure; make
...
gcc -shared apache_cookie.lo apache_request.lo
apache_multipart_buffer.lo -lc -Wl,-soname
-Wl,libapreq.so.0 -o .libs/libapreq.so.0.0.0
^
It looks like this is building a 0.0.0 version on my box;
I think it should be 1.0.0; however-
% grep VERSION Makefile
VERSION = 1.0.0
distdir = $(PACKAGE)-$(VERSION)
% grep VERSION c/Makefile
VERSION = 1.0.0
distdir = $(top_builddir)/$(PACKAGE)-$(VERSION)/$(subdir)
That's got me stumped.
--
Joe Schaefer
Re: autoconf support?
Posted by Randy Kobes <ra...@theoryx5.uwinnipeg.ca>.
On Tue, 19 Feb 2002, Jim Winstead wrote:
> give http://www.apache.org/~jimw/libapreq-1.0.tar.gz a spin.
>
> i'll make it available on cpan and httpd.apache.org/apreq on thursday
> with a few +1s.
Builds and tests fine on Win32 ActivePerl with the latest
cvs modperl.
best regards,
randy
Re: autoconf support?
Posted by Jim Winstead <ji...@apache.org>.
On Tue, Feb 12, 2002 at 03:23:54PM -0500, Joe Schaefer wrote:
> What do you think about putting together a test distribution from
> the current CVS? That way at least we can test everything out,
> including the autoconf support.
give http://www.apache.org/~jimw/libapreq-1.0.tar.gz a spin.
i'll make it available on cpan and httpd.apache.org/apreq on thursday
with a few +1s.
jim