You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@httpd.apache.org by Joe Orton <jo...@redhat.com> on 2005/10/24 14:22:36 UTC
[RFC] require apr/apr-util 1.2.x for 2.2.x
There was a thread about this previously; just checking for consensus,
is there any objection to bumping the apr/apr-util version requirements
to 1.2.x? (1.2.x is already required for mod_dbd, event MP, and it will
simplify the code to allow unconditional use of 1.2.x features)
Index: configure.in
===================================================================
--- configure.in (revision 328042)
+++ configure.in (working copy)
@@ -87,6 +87,11 @@
APR_VERSION=`$apr_config --version`
APR_CONFIG="$APR_BINDIR/apr-`echo ${APR_VERSION} | sed 's,\..*,,'`-config"
+if test "${apr_found}" = "yes"; then
+ # Require APR 1.2.x otherwise fail
+ APACHE_CHECK_APxVER([apr], 1, 2)
+fi
+
echo $ac_n "${nl}Configuring Apache Portable Runtime Utility library...${nl}"
APR_FIND_APU("$srcdir/srclib/apr-util", "./srclib/apr-util", 1, 1)
@@ -112,6 +117,9 @@
dnl We must be the last to build and the first to be cleaned
AP_BUILD_SRCLIB_DIRS="$AP_BUILD_SRCLIB_DIRS apr-util"
AP_CLEAN_SRCLIB_DIRS="apr-util $AP_CLEAN_SRCLIB_DIRS"
+else
+ # Require APR-util 1.2.x otherwise fail
+ APACHE_CHECK_APxVER([apu], 1, 2)
fi
APR_ADDTO(LDFLAGS, `$apu_config --ldflags`)
Re: [RFC] require apr/apr-util 1.2.x for 2.2.x
Posted by "William A. Rowe, Jr." <wr...@rowe-clan.net>.
Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 24, 2005 at 01:41:18PM +0100, Colm MacCarthaigh wrote:
>
>>If I might also ask, would anyone mind if;
>>
>> ./configure --with-apr=bundled --with-apr-util=bundled
>>
>>were added as options? Right now APR_FIND_APU and APR_FIND_APR are given
>>"1" as the third argument, which means that if apr/apr-util are in the
>>install prefix - they are preferred over the bundled versions.
>>
>>That's fine behaviour, but it's also a real hassle for development :-)
+1 but Justin is right, the syntax becomes --with-apr-bundled (or
with-bundled-apr). The =bundled path syntax is simply wrong.
Re: [RFC] require apr/apr-util 1.2.x for 2.2.x
Posted by Justin Erenkrantz <ju...@erenkrantz.com>.
On Mon, Oct 24, 2005 at 01:41:18PM +0100, Colm MacCarthaigh wrote:
> If I might also ask, would anyone mind if;
>
> ./configure --with-apr=bundled --with-apr-util=bundled
>
> were added as options? Right now APR_FIND_APU and APR_FIND_APR are given
> "1" as the third argument, which means that if apr/apr-util are in the
> install prefix - they are preferred over the bundled versions.
>
> That's fine behaviour, but it's also a real hassle for development :-)
So?
Specify the path to your installed development copy directly. But
bundled will be treated as a directory - hence, your hack isn't a
valid solution. -- justin
Re: [RFC] require apr/apr-util 1.2.x for 2.2.x
Posted by Colm MacCarthaigh <co...@stdlib.net>.
On Mon, Oct 24, 2005 at 01:22:36PM +0100, Joe Orton wrote:
> There was a thread about this previously; just checking for consensus,
> is there any objection to bumping the apr/apr-util version requirements
> to 1.2.x? (1.2.x is already required for mod_dbd, event MP, and it will
> simplify the code to allow unconditional use of 1.2.x features)
+1
If I might also ask, would anyone mind if;
./configure --with-apr=bundled --with-apr-util=bundled
were added as options? Right now APR_FIND_APU and APR_FIND_APR are given
"1" as the third argument, which means that if apr/apr-util are in the
install prefix - they are preferred over the bundled versions.
That's fine behaviour, but it's also a real hassle for development :-)
--
Colm MacCárthaigh Public Key: colm+pgp@stdlib.net
Re: [RFC] require apr/apr-util 1.2.x for 2.2.x
Posted by Jeff Trawick <tr...@gmail.com>.
On 10/24/05, Nick Kew <ni...@webthing.com> wrote:
> On Monday 24 October 2005 13:22, Joe Orton wrote:
> > There was a thread about this previously; just checking for consensus,
> > is there any objection to bumping the apr/apr-util version requirements
> > to 1.2.x? (1.2.x is already required for mod_dbd, event MP, and it will
> > simplify the code to allow unconditional use of 1.2.x features)
>
> +1
+1 here as well
Re: [RFC] require apr/apr-util 1.2.x for 2.2.x
Posted by Nick Kew <ni...@webthing.com>.
On Monday 24 October 2005 13:22, Joe Orton wrote:
> There was a thread about this previously; just checking for consensus,
> is there any objection to bumping the apr/apr-util version requirements
> to 1.2.x? (1.2.x is already required for mod_dbd, event MP, and it will
> simplify the code to allow unconditional use of 1.2.x features)
+1
Indeed, given not least the close relationship of the projects, I see no
real downside in requiring APR to be latest-at-time-of-2.2-release,
whether that be 1.2 or some later version.
--
Nick Kew
Re: [RFC] require apr/apr-util 1.2.x for 2.2.x
Posted by Justin Erenkrantz <ju...@erenkrantz.com>.
On Mon, Oct 24, 2005 at 01:22:36PM +0100, Joe Orton wrote:
> There was a thread about this previously; just checking for consensus,
> is there any objection to bumping the apr/apr-util version requirements
> to 1.2.x? (1.2.x is already required for mod_dbd, event MP, and it will
> simplify the code to allow unconditional use of 1.2.x features)
-0.
I don't think it's appropriate and pushes us even further on the
bleeding edge of what vendors will provide. -- justin