You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@httpd.apache.org by Cliff Woolley <cl...@yahoo.com> on 2001/11/07 03:25:03 UTC
BSD Makefiles (was Re: httpd 2.0.27 tarballs are available)
On Tue, 6 Nov 2001, The Doctor wrote:
> > > > Wait a second. That is bogus. What we have essentially done, is
> > > > that we force somebody to use a specific version of make. We
> > > > should only be using portable make commands. If we can't do
> > > > that, then we should only convert to BSD/OS make if the build is
> > > > using that make.
> > >
> > > Ryan the beauty of Apache 1.X is that it is platform agnostic.
> > > Can it be done for Apache 2.X?
> >
> > It has to be. If it isn't done for Apache 2.x, then Apache 2.x is broken.
>
> Please fix. I am willing to assist.
Okay, so I've been looking into this (thanks for the account), and I'm
starting to see the problem. Looks like our build/bsd_makefile and
build/sysv_makefile scripts are doing a halfass job, and only SOME of the
Makefiles are getting converted in either direction.
Specifically, the Makefiles in apr-util are not getting converted to
bsd-make flavor, which is why make doesn't work.
But the rest ARE converted, which is why gmake doesn't work; the
build/sysv_makefile script doesn't help either, because it misses some
while converting them back, so even running that doesn't let you use
gmake.
A quick and dirty hack of making build/sysv_makefile and
build/bsd_makefile do recursive searches for Makefiles to convert makes
the thing compile correctly, but then again that breaks all the magic
that's trying to happen behind the scenes with build/fastgen.sh and all.
I'm still trying to figure out how this is supposed to work.
--Cliff
--------------------------------------------------------------
Cliff Woolley
cliffwoolley@yahoo.com
Charlottesville, VA
Re: BSD Makefiles (was Re: httpd 2.0.27 tarballs are available)
Posted by "Roy T. Fielding" <fi...@ebuilt.com>.
On Wed, Nov 07, 2001 at 12:52:56AM -0500, Cliff Woolley wrote:
> On Tue, 6 Nov 2001, Roy T. Fielding wrote:
>
> > Flatten them. APR deals with it by placing all of the rules in
> > one file and selectively activates the rules according to what variables
> > are set in the including file (e.g., SUBDIRS, TARGETS, etc.), which has
> > the effect of selecting a rule via its dependencies.
>
> Makes sense.
>
> [ Gotta love these "little" changes that snowball into an overhaul of the
> build system. :) No wonder these things got put on hold. ]
Bingo! I spent a truely hideous amount of time just getting to the point
where I understood what needed to be done. I tried to do exactly what
you are starting on twice, but both times I ran into some other aspect
of the build system that required a couple days of work to fix first.
Good luck. ;-)
....Roy
Re: BSD Makefiles (was Re: httpd 2.0.27 tarballs are available)
Posted by Cliff Woolley <cl...@yahoo.com>.
On Tue, 6 Nov 2001, Roy T. Fielding wrote:
> Flatten them. APR deals with it by placing all of the rules in
> one file and selectively activates the rules according to what variables
> are set in the including file (e.g., SUBDIRS, TARGETS, etc.), which has
> the effect of selecting a rule via its dependencies.
Makes sense.
[ Gotta love these "little" changes that snowball into an overhaul of the
build system. :) No wonder these things got put on hold. ]
I'll look into this in the morning.
--Cliff
--------------------------------------------------------------
Cliff Woolley
cliffwoolley@yahoo.com
Charlottesville, VA
Re: BSD Makefiles (was Re: httpd 2.0.27 tarballs are available)
Posted by "Roy T. Fielding" <fi...@ebuilt.com>.
> That sounds like a fine idea to me... except how do you deal with the fact
> that any given Makefile in httpd might include two or three different
> files, whereas in APR all Makefiles only include rules.mk?
Flatten them. APR deals with it by placing all of the rules in
one file and selectively activates the rules according to what variables
are set in the including file (e.g., SUBDIRS, TARGETS, etc.), which has
the effect of selecting a rule via its dependencies.
httpd is including separate rules files based on what type of variables
would be set. In other words, it is a config-time conditional rather
than a make-time conditional. The problem is that it depends on include
being portable, which it isn't, which is why apr took a different path.
....Roy
Re: BSD Makefiles (was Re: httpd 2.0.27 tarballs are available)
Posted by David Reid <dr...@jetnet.co.uk>.
Seems doable...
I'm looking at it at the moment as BSDi's build seems broken right now.
Slightly different solution though.
david
----- Original Message -----
From: "Cliff Woolley" <cl...@yahoo.com>
To: "Roy T. Fielding" <fi...@ebuilt.com>
Cc: <de...@httpd.apache.org>
Sent: Wednesday, November 07, 2001 5:22 AM
Subject: Re: BSD Makefiles (was Re: httpd 2.0.27 tarballs are available)
> On Tue, 6 Nov 2001, Roy T. Fielding wrote:
>
> > Yeah, ditch the bsd_makefile script and simply use configure to do
> > the symbol replacement of @INCLUDE_RULES@, like it is done in apr.
> > The httpd way of doing it is bogus. That was on the long list
> > of things to do for the single-build system.
>
> That sounds like a fine idea to me... except how do you deal with the fact
> that any given Makefile in httpd might include two or three different
> files, whereas in APR all Makefiles only include rules.mk?
>
> --Cliff
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------
> Cliff Woolley
> cliffwoolley@yahoo.com
> Charlottesville, VA
>
>
>
Re: BSD Makefiles (was Re: httpd 2.0.27 tarballs are available)
Posted by Cliff Woolley <cl...@yahoo.com>.
On Tue, 6 Nov 2001, Roy T. Fielding wrote:
> Yeah, ditch the bsd_makefile script and simply use configure to do
> the symbol replacement of @INCLUDE_RULES@, like it is done in apr.
> The httpd way of doing it is bogus. That was on the long list
> of things to do for the single-build system.
That sounds like a fine idea to me... except how do you deal with the fact
that any given Makefile in httpd might include two or three different
files, whereas in APR all Makefiles only include rules.mk?
--Cliff
--------------------------------------------------------------
Cliff Woolley
cliffwoolley@yahoo.com
Charlottesville, VA
Re: BSD Makefiles (was Re: httpd 2.0.27 tarballs are available)
Posted by "Roy T. Fielding" <fi...@ebuilt.com>.
> > Looks like apr-util's configure.in is actually to blame... should have
> > this nailed down shortly.
>
> Okay, well that problem's taken care of. Next problem is that if you
> rerun configure without deleting the 0-byte bsd_makefile file in the
> top-level directory first, the build/bsd_makefile script thinks it's
> already been run, so it doesn't, and build/rules.mk gets written in sysv
> format by configure that second time around.
>
> Anybody have a good idea how to fix that problem?
Yeah, ditch the bsd_makefile script and simply use configure to do
the symbol replacement of @INCLUDE_RULES@, like it is done in apr.
The httpd way of doing it is bogus. That was on the long list
of things to do for the single-build system.
....Roy
Re: Worker MPM on BSD/OS
Posted by The Doctor <do...@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca>.
On Tue, Nov 06, 2001 at 11:40:50PM -0500, Cliff Woolley wrote:
> On Tue, 6 Nov 2001, Cliff Woolley wrote:
>
> > On Tue, 6 Nov 2001, Cliff Woolley wrote:
> >
> > > PS: I did get the thing to compile and run (worker MPM), but when I ran ab
> > > against it, the server just sat there doing a poll and ab eventually timed
> > > out. I'm recompiling now with prefork to see what happens...
> >
> > Prefork works beautifully on BSD/OS... don't know what was up with worker.
> > Maybe it was my imagination. I'll look into it more later.
>
> Must be my imagination. For a second I thought threaded was broken, too,
> but then it magically started working. Oh well. I'm calling this case
> closed for now... I've got other things I need to work on.
>
2.0.28 for testing. I love to see apache 2.0 Beta myself.
> --Cliff
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------
> Cliff Woolley
> cliffwoolley@yahoo.com
> Charlottesville, VA
>
>
--
Member - Liberal International On 11 Sept 2001 the WORLD was violated.
This is doctor@nl2k.ab.ca Ici doctor@nl2k.ab.ca
Society MUST be saved! Extremists must dissolve.
Lest we forget on 11 Nov 2001
Re: Worker MPM on BSD/OS
Posted by Cliff Woolley <cl...@yahoo.com>.
On Wed, 7 Nov 2001, Ryan Bloom wrote:
> On Wednesday 07 November 2001 01:28 am, Martin Kraemer wrote:
> > On Tue, Nov 06, 2001 at 11:40:50PM -0500, Cliff Woolley wrote:
> > > Must be my imagination. For a second I thought threaded was broken, too,
> > > but then it magically started working. Oh well. I'm calling this case
> > > closed for now... I've got other things I need to work on.
> >
> > Oh, so threaded works on BSD/OS? Didn't get it to run on FreeBSD yet.
>
> FreeBSD doesn't have a working thread implementation, does BSD/OS?
I was having a really hard time telling whether it was working or not.
I'm leaning toward not, because on both the server would just hang... some
of the time. I thought it was all the time, but then I tried it one last
time with threaded (having not changed anything) and it magically worked.
Sticking with prefork on BSD/OS is probably advisable.
--Cliff
--------------------------------------------------------------
Cliff Woolley
cliffwoolley@yahoo.com
Charlottesville, VA
Re: Worker MPM on BSD/OS
Posted by Ryan Bloom <rb...@covalent.net>.
On Wednesday 07 November 2001 01:28 am, Martin Kraemer wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 06, 2001 at 11:40:50PM -0500, Cliff Woolley wrote:
> > Must be my imagination. For a second I thought threaded was broken, too,
> > but then it magically started working. Oh well. I'm calling this case
> > closed for now... I've got other things I need to work on.
>
> Oh, so threaded works on BSD/OS? Didn't get it to run on FreeBSD yet.
FreeBSD doesn't have a working thread implementation, does BSD/OS?
Ryan
______________________________________________________________
Ryan Bloom rbb@apache.org
Covalent Technologies rbb@covalent.net
--------------------------------------------------------------
Re: Worker MPM on BSD/OS
Posted by Martin Kraemer <Ma...@Fujitsu-Siemens.com>.
On Tue, Nov 06, 2001 at 11:40:50PM -0500, Cliff Woolley wrote:
> Must be my imagination. For a second I thought threaded was broken, too,
> but then it magically started working. Oh well. I'm calling this case
> closed for now... I've got other things I need to work on.
Oh, so threaded works on BSD/OS? Didn't get it to run on FreeBSD yet.
Martin
--
<Ma...@Fujitsu-Siemens.com> | Fujitsu Siemens
Fon: +49-89-636-46021, FAX: +49-89-636-47655 | 81730 Munich, Germany
Re: Worker MPM on BSD/OS
Posted by Cliff Woolley <cl...@yahoo.com>.
On Tue, 6 Nov 2001, Cliff Woolley wrote:
> On Tue, 6 Nov 2001, Cliff Woolley wrote:
>
> > PS: I did get the thing to compile and run (worker MPM), but when I ran ab
> > against it, the server just sat there doing a poll and ab eventually timed
> > out. I'm recompiling now with prefork to see what happens...
>
> Prefork works beautifully on BSD/OS... don't know what was up with worker.
> Maybe it was my imagination. I'll look into it more later.
Must be my imagination. For a second I thought threaded was broken, too,
but then it magically started working. Oh well. I'm calling this case
closed for now... I've got other things I need to work on.
--Cliff
--------------------------------------------------------------
Cliff Woolley
cliffwoolley@yahoo.com
Charlottesville, VA
Worker MPM on BSD/OS
Posted by Cliff Woolley <cl...@yahoo.com>.
On Tue, 6 Nov 2001, Cliff Woolley wrote:
> PS: I did get the thing to compile and run (worker MPM), but when I ran ab
> against it, the server just sat there doing a poll and ab eventually timed
> out. I'm recompiling now with prefork to see what happens...
Prefork works beautifully on BSD/OS... don't know what was up with worker.
Maybe it was my imagination. I'll look into it more later.
--Cliff
--------------------------------------------------------------
Cliff Woolley
cliffwoolley@yahoo.com
Charlottesville, VA
Re: BSD Makefiles (was Re: httpd 2.0.27 tarballs are available)
Posted by Cliff Woolley <cl...@yahoo.com>.
On Tue, 6 Nov 2001, Cliff Woolley wrote:
> Looks like apr-util's configure.in is actually to blame... should have
> this nailed down shortly.
Okay, well that problem's taken care of. Next problem is that if you
rerun configure without deleting the 0-byte bsd_makefile file in the
top-level directory first, the build/bsd_makefile script thinks it's
already been run, so it doesn't, and build/rules.mk gets written in sysv
format by configure that second time around.
Anybody have a good idea how to fix that problem? It's much less critical
than the earlier one, but it'd be nice to fix it. Sascha?
--Cliff
PS: I did get the thing to compile and run (worker MPM), but when I ran ab
against it, the server just sat there doing a poll and ab eventually timed
out. I'm recompiling now with prefork to see what happens...
--------------------------------------------------------------
Cliff Woolley
cliffwoolley@yahoo.com
Charlottesville, VA
Re: BSD Makefiles (was Re: httpd 2.0.27 tarballs are available)
Posted by Cliff Woolley <cl...@yahoo.com>.
On Tue, 6 Nov 2001, Cliff Woolley wrote:
> Specifically, the Makefiles in apr-util are not getting converted to
> bsd-make flavor, which is why make doesn't work.
Looks like apr-util's configure.in is actually to blame... should have
this nailed down shortly.
--Cliff
--------------------------------------------------------------
Cliff Woolley
cliffwoolley@yahoo.com
Charlottesville, VA