Re: Refactoring apxs, WAS: RE: using installed apxs when apr and apache are installed in different directories

["William A. Rowe, Jr." <wr...@rowe-clan.net>]

At 11:58 AM 5/21/2003, you wrote:
>> 
>> Actually, Thom's point actually makes win32 much *easier* to set up to
>> support APXs on win32... if we can only get rid of the libtool dependency ;-)
>> In any case, I'm thinking if you want to create a parallel .sh script and we
>> can all agree to keep the .sh and .pl flavors of apxs in working order, this
>> could be a good thing for everyone :-)
>> 
>OK, i just reread this thread in the light of what I just commited to
>httpd-2.0/STATUS; and this comment still somewhat confuses me :-)
>
>Is the first bit meaning:
>if you try and have an httpd-config, you'll break apxs on Win32? but this
>makes no sense to me, cos surely ap{r,u}-config will have already broken
>apxs for you?

No, apxs for 2.0 is altogether broken for us, it needs surgery to become 
a useful tool again on Win32.  If you look at apache-1.3 you will see that
I'd thunked what we needed and everything was working ok.  apxs for 2.0
is too radically different.

>Does apxs actually make sense on Win32 anyway? As Will points out, it's very
>dependent on libtool. 

The idea may be a 'libtool'ish thunk, borrowing on Jeff's or Brian's work.

>My suggestion for httpd-config and the refactoring of apxs would reduce apxs 
>to as minimal as possible a wrapper for the *-config scripts; really it
>would only be there for backwards compatibility and to allow the easy
>production of Makefiles for modules.

The upshot - anything you put into perl we can somehow ultimately deal
with.  Anything that is shell script will have no value in ever getting all of
the plumbing hooked up for Win32 :-)

Bill

Re: Refactoring apxs, WAS: RE: using installed apxs when apr and apache are installed in different directories

[Thom May <th...@planetarytramp.net>]

* William A. Rowe, Jr. (wrowe@rowe-clan.net) wrote :
> At 11:58 AM 5/21/2003, you wrote:
> >Is the first bit meaning:
> >if you try and have an httpd-config, you'll break apxs on Win32? but this
> >makes no sense to me, cos surely ap{r,u}-config will have already broken
> >apxs for you?
> 
> No, apxs for 2.0 is altogether broken for us, it needs surgery to become 
> a useful tool again on Win32.  If you look at apache-1.3 you will see that
> I'd thunked what we needed and everything was working ok.  apxs for 2.0
> is too radically different.
>
Right. But how do we get to that point? Is it actually worth thinking about
having a totally different tool for windows? It seems that the route it
would need to go down is potentially different enough that that might be a
less resource intensive approach?

> >My suggestion for httpd-config and the refactoring of apxs would reduce apxs 
> >to as minimal as possible a wrapper for the *-config scripts; really it
> >would only be there for backwards compatibility and to allow the easy
> >production of Makefiles for modules.
> 
> The upshot - anything you put into perl we can somehow ultimately deal
> with.  Anything that is shell script will have no value in ever getting all of
> the plumbing hooked up for Win32 :-)
> 
OIC. :-) 
-Thom