You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@httpd.apache.org by David Reid <dr...@jetnet.co.uk> on 2000/03/02 13:57:21 UTC
configure --prefix???
Does configure --prefix still work?
I ask as I just synched and built Apache 2.0 using
./configure --prefix=/boot/home/apache2 and when I try to run it I get an
error saying that it can't find /usr/local/apache/conf/httpd.conf.
It worked when I last built (approx 10 days ago) so am I just being thick???
david
Re: configure --prefix???
Posted by Manoj Kasichainula <ma...@io.com>.
On Thu, Mar 16, 2000 at 05:49:13PM -0500, Ryan Bloom wrote:
> >
> > No it's not. You have to actually compile a .c file for the script to
> > even be relevant to that code. If the cc is never run because make
> > thinks all the dependencies are met, then regenerating apaci doesn't
> > do a thing for us
> >
> You are correct, my bad. How did this work in 1.3?
This target in Makefile.tmpl (changed appropriately when APACI was
used):
all: Configuration $(TARGET)
So, whenever the configuration changes, everything gets rebuilt. It
feels hacky to me. Hopefully, replacing apaci with a header file will
mean that sort of thing will be uncessary in 2.0.
Re: configure --prefix???
Posted by rb...@apache.org.
>
> No it's not. You have to actually compile a .c file for the script to
> even be relevant to that code. If the cc is never run because make
> thinks all the dependencies are met, then regenerating apaci doesn't
> do a thing for us
>
You are correct, my bad. How did this work in 1.3?
Ryan
_______________________________________________________________________________
Ryan Bloom rbb@apache.org
406 29th St.
San Francisco, CA 94131
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Re: configure --prefix???
Posted by Manoj Kasichainula <ma...@io.com>.
On Thu, Mar 16, 2000 at 05:15:15PM -0500, Ryan Bloom wrote:
> On Thu, 16 Mar 2000, Manoj Kasichainula wrote:
> > But then you run into problems like David Reid had, where you rerun
> > configure with different flags and things don't work, because
> > dependencies aren't correctly. I guess we could solve this by
> > adding a dependency for the various C files to src/apaci, but I'd
> > rather not get in the business of manual dependency management.
>
> This is all solved if the script is generated EVERY time configure is run.
No it's not. You have to actually compile a .c file for the script to
even be relevant to that code. If the cc is never run because make
thinks all the dependencies are met, then regenerating apaci doesn't
do a thing for us
Re: configure --prefix???
Posted by rb...@apache.org.
On Thu, 16 Mar 2000, Manoj Kasichainula wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 15, 2000 at 09:24:32PM -0500, Ryan Bloom wrote:
> > The reason I used the script, was because autoconf was a PITA, and I could
> > either define it on the gcc command line or put it in the script. The
> > script was much much cleaner. I don't think the script is such a bad
> > thing. We just need to generate it properly each time, and clean it up on
> > distclean.
>
> But then you run into problems like David Reid had, where you rerun
> configure with different flags and things don't work, because
> dependencies aren't correctly. I guess we could solve this by
> adding a dependency for the various C files to src/apaci, but I'd
> rather not get in the business of manual dependency management.
>
> If nothing else, we could let autoconf generate a script that creates
> the new header file. This is easy (I can scarf PHP's php_version.h
> generation code), and I'd be pretty happy with that.
This is all solved if the script is generated EVERY time configure is run.
I'm not sure why it isn't being done currently, but this seems like the
easiest way to fix this problem.
I don't see a huge difference between generating the script and generating
the header file.
Ryan
_______________________________________________________________________________
Ryan Bloom rbb@apache.org
406 29th St.
San Francisco, CA 94131
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Re: configure --prefix???
Posted by Manoj Kasichainula <ma...@io.com>.
On Wed, Mar 15, 2000 at 09:24:32PM -0500, Ryan Bloom wrote:
> The reason I used the script, was because autoconf was a PITA, and I could
> either define it on the gcc command line or put it in the script. The
> script was much much cleaner. I don't think the script is such a bad
> thing. We just need to generate it properly each time, and clean it up on
> distclean.
But then you run into problems like David Reid had, where you rerun
configure with different flags and things don't work, because
dependencies aren't correctly. I guess we could solve this by
adding a dependency for the various C files to src/apaci, but I'd
rather not get in the business of manual dependency management.
If nothing else, we could let autoconf generate a script that creates
the new header file. This is easy (I can scarf PHP's php_version.h
generation code), and I'd be pretty happy with that.
Re: configure --prefix???
Posted by Greg Stein <gs...@lyra.org>.
On Wed, 15 Mar 2000 rbb@apache.org wrote:
> On Wed, 15 Mar 2000, Manoj Kasichainula wrote:
> > On Tue, Mar 07, 2000 at 02:33:51AM -0600, Me at IO wrote:
> > > Hmmm. We probably need to add a global dependancy in the Apache
> > > section of the tree on the apaci script (why is it called apaci?).
> > >
> > > Actually, instead of that script, we should just be adding these
> > > entries into the configuration header file.
> > >
> > > Hopefully, I'll do this on the plane today.
> >
> > I am working on this. Autoconf is being, ummm, lets say uncooperative.
>
> The reason I used the script, was because autoconf was a PITA, and I could
> either define it on the gcc command line or put it in the script. The
> script was much much cleaner. I don't think the script is such a bad
> thing. We just need to generate it properly each time, and clean it up on
> distclean.
-0 on keeping the script around. If we can drop an item from the
configuration/build process (by shifting stuff to header files), then
we've reduced complexity! And we all know that is a bonus...
Cheers,
-g
--
Greg Stein, http://www.lyra.org/
Re: configure --prefix???
Posted by rb...@apache.org.
On Wed, 15 Mar 2000, Manoj Kasichainula wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 07, 2000 at 02:33:51AM -0600, Me at IO wrote:
> > Hmmm. We probably need to add a global dependancy in the Apache
> > section of the tree on the apaci script (why is it called apaci?).
> >
> > Actually, instead of that script, we should just be adding these
> > entries into the configuration header file.
> >
> > Hopefully, I'll do this on the plane today.
>
> I am working on this. Autoconf is being, ummm, lets say uncooperative.
The reason I used the script, was because autoconf was a PITA, and I could
either define it on the gcc command line or put it in the script. The
script was much much cleaner. I don't think the script is such a bad
thing. We just need to generate it properly each time, and clean it up on
distclean.
Ryan
_______________________________________________________________________________
Ryan Bloom rbb@apache.org
406 29th St.
San Francisco, CA 94131
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Re: configure --prefix???
Posted by Manoj Kasichainula <ma...@io.com>.
On Tue, Mar 07, 2000 at 02:33:51AM -0600, Me at IO wrote:
> Hmmm. We probably need to add a global dependancy in the Apache
> section of the tree on the apaci script (why is it called apaci?).
>
> Actually, instead of that script, we should just be adding these
> entries into the configuration header file.
>
> Hopefully, I'll do this on the plane today.
I am working on this. Autoconf is being, ummm, lets say uncooperative.
Re: configure --prefix???
Posted by Manoj Kasichainula <ma...@io.com>.
On Sat, Mar 04, 2000 at 03:52:38PM -0000, David Reid wrote:
> Yeah, it works for me if I run with "configure --prefix=..." as the initial
> configure, but if I first do a plain old "configure" then try to reconfigure
> with "configure --prefix=..." then it fails to reset the prefix value.
Hmmm. We probably need to add a global dependancy in the Apache
section of the tree on the apaci script (why is it called apaci?).
Actually, instead of that script, we should just be adding these
entries into the configuration header file.
Hopefully, I'll do this on the plane today.
Re: configure --prefix???
Posted by David Reid <dr...@jetnet.co.uk>.
Yeah, it works for me if I run with "configure --prefix=..." as the initial
configure, but if I first do a plain old "configure" then try to reconfigure
with "configure --prefix=..." then it fails to reset the prefix value.
Gotta got to Trieste now so no time to look into it...
d.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Manoj Kasichainula" <ma...@io.com>
To: "Apache (new-httpd)" <ne...@apache.org>
Sent: Thursday, March 02, 2000 10:26 PM
Subject: Re: configure --prefix???
> On Thu, Mar 02, 2000 at 12:57:21PM -0000, David Reid wrote:
> > I ask as I just synched and built Apache 2.0 using
> > ./configure --prefix=/boot/home/apache2 and when I try to run it I get
an
> > error saying that it can't find /usr/local/apache/conf/httpd.conf.
> >
> > It worked when I last built (approx 10 days ago) so am I just being
thick???
>
> It's working for me. *shrug*
>
>
Re: configure --prefix???
Posted by Manoj Kasichainula <ma...@io.com>.
On Thu, Mar 02, 2000 at 12:57:21PM -0000, David Reid wrote:
> I ask as I just synched and built Apache 2.0 using
> ./configure --prefix=/boot/home/apache2 and when I try to run it I get an
> error saying that it can't find /usr/local/apache/conf/httpd.conf.
>
> It worked when I last built (approx 10 days ago) so am I just being thick???
It's working for me. *shrug*