You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@apr.apache.org by Cliff Woolley <cl...@yahoo.com> on 2001/06/07 00:33:34 UTC
buildconf
Can somebody remind me why it is that APR-util has 'buildconf.sh' and APR
and Apache have just plain 'buildconf'? ISTR that we were going to
migrate to 'buildconf.sh' and that it just only got done half-way. Is
that right?
Thanks,
Cliff
--------------------------------------------------------------
Cliff Woolley
cliffwoolley@yahoo.com
Charlottesville, VA
Re: buildconf
Posted by Justin Erenkrantz <je...@ebuilt.com>.
On Wed, Jun 06, 2001 at 06:33:34PM -0400, Cliff Woolley wrote:
>
> Can somebody remind me why it is that APR-util has 'buildconf.sh' and APR
> and Apache have just plain 'buildconf'? ISTR that we were going to
> migrate to 'buildconf.sh' and that it just only got done half-way. Is
> that right?
IIRC, Roy never got around to fixing up apr-util. I think it is on his
list of things to do, but I'm not sure. It probably wouldn't be hard to
look at what was done for APR and httpd and have apr-util match.
(He's still at JavaOne and email there is spotty...)
-- justin
Re: buildconf
Posted by Greg Stein <gs...@lyra.org>.
On Wed, Jun 06, 2001 at 06:33:34PM -0400, Cliff Woolley wrote:
>
> Can somebody remind me why it is that APR-util has 'buildconf.sh' and APR
> and Apache have just plain 'buildconf'? ISTR that we were going to
> migrate to 'buildconf.sh' and that it just only got done half-way. Is
> that right?
It's a shell script, meant for execution. Thus, the .sh extension. Many
projects use "autogen.sh", but the Apache projects don't follow that
tradition. buildconf(.sh) is the name/term we use.
The .sh extension clues in various apps that the thing is a script. Emacs
recognizes it, file managers can recognize it, etc.
And yes, the problem is due to "done half-way"
Cheers,
-g
--
Greg Stein, http://www.lyra.org/
Re: buildconf
Posted by rb...@covalent.net.
I don't believe we were going to migrate to one or the other. They should
definately be the same thing. However, why we should change two when we
could change one is beyond me.
Ryan
On Wed, 6 Jun 2001, Cliff Woolley wrote:
>
> Can somebody remind me why it is that APR-util has 'buildconf.sh' and APR
> and Apache have just plain 'buildconf'? ISTR that we were going to
> migrate to 'buildconf.sh' and that it just only got done half-way. Is
> that right?
>
> Thanks,
> Cliff
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------
> Cliff Woolley
> cliffwoolley@yahoo.com
> Charlottesville, VA
>
>
>
_______________________________________________________________________________
Ryan Bloom rbb@apache.org
406 29th St.
San Francisco, CA 94131
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------