You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@httpd.apache.org by "Ralf S. Engelschall" <rs...@engelschall.com> on 1998/06/09 11:52:59 UTC
Re: general/2388: there is no binarie in http://www.apache.org/dist/binaries/solaris/
In article <19...@hyperreal.org> you wrote:
> Synopsis: there is no binarie in http://www.apache.org/dist/binaries/solaris/
> State-Changed-From-To: open-closed
> State-Changed-By: marc
> State-Changed-When: Tue Jun 9 02:04:05 PDT 1998
> State-Changed-Why:
> Yes there is. It is called "httpd-sparc-sun-solaris"
> in the src/ directory.
> Please take a minute or two and look before submitting
> a PR.
How would Marc usually say in a similar context when the topic is about APACI:
"That's the reason from having such a thing". These PR's occur every release
because of the used binbuild.sh which makes a source tarball with a renamed
httpd binary. Exactly because of these side-effects I wanted to use a
different (I avoid the word "better") binary tarball approach for 1.3.0.
Hmmmm.... but because no one liked it everyone has to life with these PRs ;-)
Sorry, I couldn't resists. Just ignore my loud thinking if it bother you...
PS: I'm still the opinion that the Apache binary tarballs are more
than non-standard and always will be confusing to the users. At least
the httpd renaming should be removed, shouldn't it?
Ralf S. Engelschall
rse@engelschall.com
www.engelschall.com
Re: general/2388: there is no binarie in http://www.apache.org/dist/binaries/solaris/
Posted by Martin Kraemer <Ma...@mch.sni.de>.
On Tue, Jun 09, 1998 at 11:49:20AM -0600, Marc Slemko wrote:
> On Tue, 9 Jun 1998, Ralf S. Engelschall wrote:
> [...] should encourage people to get a clue or compiler and figure out how to
> compile it themself. The existing way of building binaries allows that,
> both because it provides the source and a Configuration file that was used
> to build it and because the binary is named something that won't get
> trashed by the user messing with things.
That's the reason I *used to* freeze my Configurations files (under names
as Configuration.RM400-sni-sysv4). But now I prefer to freeze the line
by which I called ./configure -- it's much better because it also documents
the intention behind module selections, and library and compiler choices.
Here's the special version for BS2000. You can see that c89 is needed
as compiler, and special flags must be passed. You can see my choice of
paths, and my choice of modules.
If this were the distributed version (Well, I wouldn't use /usr/local
libs in a distribution) I'd just add this small file to document my
configuration process in a reproducable manner.
Martin
#!/bin/sh -x
# $Id: configure.pgab0021,v 1.6 1998/05/22 17:04:45 martin Exp $
# Konfiguration für BS2000/OSD POSIX
CC="c89 -XLLML -XLLMK -O" \
CFLAGS='-I/usr/local/include' \
LDFLAGS='-L${HOME}/LIB -L/usr/local/lib -L${HOME}/apachen/src/os/bs2000/WebTA' \
LIBS='-lresolv -lwebtrans_V2' \
./configure \
--compat \
--prefix=/opt/apache \
--exec-prefix=/opt/apache \
--bindir=/opt/apache/bin \
--sbindir=/opt/apache/sbin \
--libexecdir=/opt/apache/sbin \
--mandir=/opt/apache/man \
--sysconfdir=/opt/apache/conf \
--datadir=/opt/apache \
--localstatedir=/opt/apache \
--enable-module=all\
--disable-module=mmap_static\
--disable-module=so\
--disable-module=example\
--disable-module=mime_magic\
--disable-module=unique_id\
--activate-module=src/modules/extra/mod_webta.o \
--includedir=/opt/apache/include "$@"
--
| S I E M E N S | <Ma...@mch.sni.de> | Siemens Nixdorf
| ------------- | Voice: +49-89-636-46021 | Informationssysteme AG
| N I X D O R F | FAX: +49-89-636-44994 | 81730 Munich, Germany
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~My opinions only, of course; pgp key available on request
Re: general/2388: there is no binarie in http://www.apache.org/dist/binaries/solaris/
Posted by Marc Slemko <ma...@worldgate.com>.
On Tue, 9 Jun 1998, Ralf S. Engelschall wrote:
> How would Marc usually say in a similar context when the topic is about APACI:
> "That's the reason from having such a thing". These PR's occur every release
> because of the used binbuild.sh which makes a source tarball with a renamed
> httpd binary. Exactly because of these side-effects I wanted to use a
> different (I avoid the word "better") binary tarball approach for 1.3.0.
> Hmmmm.... but because no one liked it everyone has to life with these PRs ;-)
>
> Sorry, I couldn't resists. Just ignore my loud thinking if it bother you...
>
> PS: I'm still the opinion that the Apache binary tarballs are more
> than non-standard and always will be confusing to the users. At least
> the httpd renaming should be removed, shouldn't it?
The httpd renaming is there for a reason. That reason is because we
should encourage people to get a clue or compiler and figure out how to
compile it themself. The existing way of building binaries allows that,
both because it provides the source and a Configuration file that was used
to build it and because the binary is named something that won't get
trashed by the user messing with things.