You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@httpd.apache.org by "Roy T. Fielding" <fi...@kiwi.ics.uci.edu> on 1998/02/03 00:33:00 UTC
Re: apache/linux modules
>I still have grave concerns about autoconf's ability to sense all the
>platform-specific issues src/Configure does.
I have been using automake+autoconf for over a year now on another
project and it is far better at sensing platform-specific issues than
src/Configure. In fact, you could even have it simply do what our
Configure does -- running static scripts is no different than running
static macros.
It would still require a lot of work and some getting used to.
I wouldn't even consider it until 2.0 gets going, and even then
we should try to get Tom Romey to send us his macros first (and
maybe help us get started).
....Roy
Re: autoconf
Posted by Brian Behlendorf <br...@organic.com>.
At 05:30 PM 2/2/98 -0700, Marc Slemko wrote:
>I'm still not happy with the way of specifying options for it though.
>Having to save the command line to some file or something is just a
>horrible kludge.
Let's separate the x-platform benefits of autoconf from the
where-and-how-do-I-install-this-query part of autoconf.
I can't imagine it'd be hard to have autoconf create a "configure" script
which mimics basically what Configure does today; read in a file containing
information about which modules to compile in, + some basic defines for
installation locations maybe & compilation parameters, and then does it's
x-platform dance and creates the appropriate makefiles.
Win32 I'm not worried about, since we use a different compilation system
anyways.
Brian
--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--
specialization is for insects brian@organic.com
Re: apache/linux modules
Posted by Cristian Gafton <ga...@redhat.com>.
On Mon, 2 Feb 1998, Randy Terbush wrote:
> And what does it do with that information if I build on a different
> architecture with different parameters?
It will detect a different host type and not use the cached information.
Cristian
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Cristian Gafton -- gafton@redhat.com -- Red Hat Software, Inc.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
UNIX is user friendly. It's just selective about who its friends are.
Re: apache/linux modules
Posted by Randy Terbush <ra...@covalent.net>.
Cristian Gafton <ga...@redhat.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 2 Feb 1998, Marc Slemko wrote:
>
> > I'm still not happy with the way of specifying options for it though.
> > Having to save the command line to some file or something is just a
> > horrible kludge.
>
> It saves it's command line in its log file. And instead of looking into
> Cnfiguration file to change something, you do a ./confgure --help and look
> for the option you need.
>
> And nobody said that the defaults shouldn't be acceptable for most cases,
> so you won't need to document youself on this configure thing ( the same
> way Configure works)
And what does it do with that information if I build on a different
architecture with different parameters?
Re: apache/linux modules
Posted by Cristian Gafton <ga...@redhat.com>.
On Mon, 2 Feb 1998, Rodent of Unusual Size wrote:
> I don't see this. What patches? All you need is a separate Configuration
> file for each platform - and it appears to me that you need much the
> same if you use autoconf.
That means separate patches for building under different platforms, etc,
etc.
> The waters are getting muddy again; are your remarks about distribution
> aimed at the autoconf discussion, or the dynamic module discussion?
Both. Dynamic thing vbeing number one.
Cristian
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Cristian Gafton -- gafton@redhat.com -- Red Hat Software, Inc.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
UNIX is user friendly. It's just selective about who its friends are.
Re: apache/linux modules
Posted by Rodent of Unusual Size <Ke...@Golux.Com>.
Cristian Gafton wrote:
>
> That is no use to me as a distribution maintainer. 90% of the users are
> using binary distributions and don't bother to see how apache is compiled.
Attribution, please. Given the last two month's worth of press about
Web server "market share" alone, I am dubious about you '90%' figure.
> Having more documentation does not help me at all. Moreover, having to
> have different distribution-specific patches for different platforms
> (alpha, sparc, intel) and maintaining those patches is kind of a pain.
> Having the possibility to run the same ./configure command line when
> building the package will be a very nice thing.
I don't see this. What patches? All you need is a separate Configuration
file for each platform - and it appears to me that you need much the
same if you use autoconf.
The waters are getting muddy again; are your remarks about distribution
aimed at the autoconf discussion, or the dynamic module discussion?
#ken P-)}
Re: apache/linux modules
Posted by Cristian Gafton <ga...@redhat.com>.
On Mon, 2 Feb 1998, Marc Slemko wrote:
> The Configuration file can have a lot more docs than --help.
That is no use to me as a distribution maintainer. 90% of the users are
using binary distributions and don't bother to see how apache is compiled.
Having more documentation does not help me at all. Moreover, having to
have different distribution-specific patches for different platforms
(alpha, sparc, intel) and maintaining those patches is kind of a pain.
Having the possibility to run the same ./configure command line when
building the package will be a very nice thing.
> Saving the command line != making it easy to reuse it and see what it is
> doing.
Agree. I didn't say that we could not still have the old Configure, but
that will have to be upgraded to use autoconf naming style.
Cristian
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Cristian Gafton -- gafton@redhat.com -- Red Hat Software, Inc.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
UNIX is user friendly. It's just selective about who its friends are.
Re: apache/linux modules
Posted by Marc Slemko <ma...@worldgate.com>.
On Mon, 2 Feb 1998, Cristian Gafton wrote:
> On Mon, 2 Feb 1998, Marc Slemko wrote:
>
> > I'm still not happy with the way of specifying options for it though.
> > Having to save the command line to some file or something is just a
> > horrible kludge.
>
> It saves it's command line in its log file. And instead of looking into
> Cnfiguration file to change something, you do a ./confgure --help and look
> for the option you need.
But I'm still not happy with that.
The Configuration file can have a lot more docs than --help.
Saving the command line != making it easy to reuse it and see what it is
doing.
>
> And nobody said that the defaults shouldn't be acceptable for most cases,
> so you won't need to document youself on this configure thing ( the same
> way Configure works)
>
>
> Cristian
> --
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> Cristian Gafton -- gafton@redhat.com -- Red Hat Software, Inc.
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> UNIX is user friendly. It's just selective about who its friends are.
>
Re: apache/linux modules
Posted by Cristian Gafton <ga...@redhat.com>.
On Mon, 2 Feb 1998, Marc Slemko wrote:
> I'm still not happy with the way of specifying options for it though.
> Having to save the command line to some file or something is just a
> horrible kludge.
It saves it's command line in its log file. And instead of looking into
Cnfiguration file to change something, you do a ./confgure --help and look
for the option you need.
And nobody said that the defaults shouldn't be acceptable for most cases,
so you won't need to document youself on this configure thing ( the same
way Configure works)
Cristian
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Cristian Gafton -- gafton@redhat.com -- Red Hat Software, Inc.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
UNIX is user friendly. It's just selective about who its friends are.
Re: apache/linux modules
Posted by Marc Slemko <ma...@worldgate.com>.
I'm still not happy with the way of specifying options for it though.
Having to save the command line to some file or something is just a
horrible kludge.
On Mon, 2 Feb 1998, Roy T. Fielding wrote:
> >I still have grave concerns about autoconf's ability to sense all the
> >platform-specific issues src/Configure does.
>
> I have been using automake+autoconf for over a year now on another
> project and it is far better at sensing platform-specific issues than
> src/Configure. In fact, you could even have it simply do what our
> Configure does -- running static scripts is no different than running
> static macros.
>
> It would still require a lot of work and some getting used to.
> I wouldn't even consider it until 2.0 gets going, and even then
> we should try to get Tom Romey to send us his macros first (and
> maybe help us get started).
>
> ....Roy
>