You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@httpd.apache.org by Ryan Bloom <rb...@ntrnet.net> on 2000/01/20 18:54:17 UTC
Building Apache 2.0
Some of the most recent changes to the build method for Apache 2.0 have
broken the APACI configuration. This means that you must use the new
autoconf build method. I am sorry about this, but it can be a real PITA
to try to keep two different build methods up to date. If you are getting
warnings and/or build problems, I suggest trying the autoconf build
method.
Ryan
_______________________________________________________________________________
Ryan Bloom rbb@ntrnet.net
6209 H Shanda Dr.
Raleigh, NC 27609 Ryan Bloom -- thinker, adventurer, artist,
writer, but mostly, friend.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Re: Building Apache 2.0
Posted by David Reid <ab...@dial.pipex.com>.
Agreed but then we must have a README or some such that explains it.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Manoj Kasichainula" <ma...@io.com>
To: <ne...@apache.org>
Sent: Thursday, January 20, 2000 7:01 PM
Subject: Re: Building Apache 2.0
> On Thu, Jan 20, 2000 at 12:54:17PM -0500, Ryan Bloom wrote:
> >
> > Some of the most recent changes to the build method for Apache 2.0 have
> > broken the APACI configuration. This means that you must use the new
> > autoconf build method.
>
> If we're not planning to fix the APACI configuration, then we should
> go ahead and eliminate it.
>
Re: Building Apache 2.0
Posted by rb...@apache.org.
On Thu, 20 Jan 2000, Manoj Kasichainula wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 20, 2000 at 12:54:17PM -0500, Ryan Bloom wrote:
> >
> > Some of the most recent changes to the build method for Apache 2.0 have
> > broken the APACI configuration. This means that you must use the new
> > autoconf build method.
>
> If we're not planning to fix the APACI configuration, then we should
> go ahead and eliminate it.
I suggest we leave it alone until we are sure the autoconf stuff is
finished to the point that we know it can handle non-unix paltforms. I am
not convinced it can simply because it doesn't do it yet.
If we remove it, it can't be modified to work. If we leave it alone and
David or I want to fix the APACI configure steps so they can work until
autoconf works properly, then we can. Currently, I am without a good
computer for doing much development. I am hoping to have this fixed by
the end of the day, but no gaurantees.
Ryan
Come to the first official Apache Software Foundation
Conference!!! <http://ApacheCon.Com/>
_______________________________________________________________________________
Ryan Bloom rbb@ntrnet.net
2121 Stonehenge Dr. Apt #3
Raleigh, NC 27615 Ryan Bloom -- thinker, adventurer, artist,
writer, but mostly, friend.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Re: Building Apache 2.0
Posted by Manoj Kasichainula <ma...@io.com>.
On Thu, Jan 20, 2000 at 12:54:17PM -0500, Ryan Bloom wrote:
>
> Some of the most recent changes to the build method for Apache 2.0 have
> broken the APACI configuration. This means that you must use the new
> autoconf build method.
If we're not planning to fix the APACI configuration, then we should
go ahead and eliminate it.
Re: Building Apache 2.0
Posted by David Reid <ab...@dial.pipex.com>.
Thanks Ryan. I've looked but am about to move house and so don't have the
time to spend to go into the detail of it. Also, as I said last night I
don't fully follow what's going on...
d.
----- Original Message -----
From: <rb...@apache.org>
To: <ne...@apache.org>
Sent: Thursday, January 20, 2000 6:59 PM
Subject: Re: Building Apache 2.0
> On Thu, 20 Jan 2000, David Reid wrote:
>
> > This is a retrograde step, but I guess it's an inevitable one. now can
we
> > get building on non-unix platforms sorted out? Ta.
>
> The step is really inevitable. I am hoping to do some work on
> configuration on non-unix platforms as soon as I get access to a non-unix
> platform. That should be any day now.
>
> Ryan
>
>
> Come to the first official Apache Software Foundation
> Conference!!! <http://ApacheCon.Com/>
>
>
____________________________________________________________________________
___
> Ryan Bloom rbb@ntrnet.net
> 2121 Stonehenge Dr. Apt #3
> Raleigh, NC 27615 Ryan Bloom -- thinker, adventurer, artist,
> writer, but mostly, friend.
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----
>
>
Re: Building Apache 2.0
Posted by rb...@apache.org.
On Thu, 20 Jan 2000, David Reid wrote:
> This is a retrograde step, but I guess it's an inevitable one. now can we
> get building on non-unix platforms sorted out? Ta.
The step is really inevitable. I am hoping to do some work on
configuration on non-unix platforms as soon as I get access to a non-unix
platform. That should be any day now.
Ryan
Come to the first official Apache Software Foundation
Conference!!! <http://ApacheCon.Com/>
_______________________________________________________________________________
Ryan Bloom rbb@ntrnet.net
2121 Stonehenge Dr. Apt #3
Raleigh, NC 27615 Ryan Bloom -- thinker, adventurer, artist,
writer, but mostly, friend.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Re: Building Apache 2.0
Posted by David Reid <ab...@dial.pipex.com>.
This is a retrograde step, but I guess it's an inevitable one. now can we
get building on non-unix platforms sorted out? Ta.
d.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ryan Bloom" <rb...@ntrnet.net>
To: <ne...@apache.org>
Sent: Thursday, January 20, 2000 5:54 PM
Subject: Building Apache 2.0
>
> Some of the most recent changes to the build method for Apache 2.0 have
> broken the APACI configuration. This means that you must use the new
> autoconf build method. I am sorry about this, but it can be a real PITA
> to try to keep two different build methods up to date. If you are getting
> warnings and/or build problems, I suggest trying the autoconf build
> method.
>
> Ryan
>
>
____________________________________________________________________________
___
> Ryan Bloom rbb@ntrnet.net
> 6209 H Shanda Dr.
> Raleigh, NC 27609 Ryan Bloom -- thinker, adventurer, artist,
> writer, but mostly, friend.
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----
>
Re: How to build 2.0 with autoconf
Posted by Ben Laurie <be...@algroup.co.uk>.
Wilfredo Sanchez wrote:
>
> | build/buildcheck.sh: libtool: not found
>
> This will be great fun on Mac OS X where we have a command called
> libtool than isn't GNU libtool. (No, we're no stupid, this comes
> from NeXT which has been using that name since well before GNU
> libtool existed.)
You gotta ask yourself: do you want to be compatible with NeXT or the
rest of the world?
Cheers,
Ben.
--
SECURE HOSTING AT THE BUNKER! http://www.thebunker.net/hosting.htm
http://www.apache-ssl.org/ben.html
"My grandfather once told me that there are two kinds of people: those
who work and those who take the credit. He told me to try to be in the
first group; there was less competition there."
- Indira Gandhi
Re: How to build 2.0 with autoconf
Posted by David Reid <ab...@dial.pipex.com>.
Ryan,
I don't think that autoconf is necessarily a bad thing, just that the way
we're using it doesn't do the job for us! APR autoconf works just fine.
Why? It's simpler and was built from the beginning with multi-platform in
mind. Every time you coded something that broke on BeOS I screamed and
together we fixed it. That worked well for APR as it was a small project
with just a few of us actively working on it and what we were doing wasn't
that complicated. Everything was fresh and that made it easier.
The problem I think with Apache 2.0 full-blown autoconf is that it's a much
larger problem. Most of the work has been done on unix for unix (or Linux).
That's fine as it's probably 99% of the audience, but that doesn't help the
other 1%. The problem is that a lot of the new work, whilst I'm sure that
it works well, doesn't make enough allowance for the multi-platform nature
of Apache.
I don't have the answers as I'm lost in the latest autoconf stuff (well I
can't find the stuff I want to change - does that count as lost??). However
there isn't an easy fix if we want a truly easy to use configure as the
problem is so big. We have a complex bit of software that should install
"out of the box" on virtually every platforms invented - that's quite an
achievement! Moving over to autoconf is going to be hard, and I have a
feeling that this is just the beginning. No worries, just take us all along
when you move is all I'm asking.
I'll devote time to getting it working I just need to get to a point that I
understand!
Version numbering shouldn't be that hard to get round, or any of the other
problems.
:-)
d.
----- Original Message -----
From: <rb...@apache.org>
To: <ne...@apache.org>
Sent: Thursday, January 20, 2000 9:12 PM
Subject: Re: How to build 2.0 with autoconf
>
> I am responding to all three recent messages in this thread here. All
> three are about porting the autoconf build process to non-unix platforms.
>
> 1) This is convincing me even more that autoconf is a bad thing. :-)
>
> 2) The way to solve all of these problems is to do what was done for
> windows. Create the header file that autoconf would have generated for
> you. This shouldn't be too hard to do.
>
> 3) Why are we having this problem now? My understanding was that Apache
> 2.0 has been building on BeOS, Mac OS X, and OS/390 for a while. I know
> we just changed the build process to require autoconf for Apache, but
> autoconf has _always_ been required for APR. I am trying to figure things
> out here, not cause problems. Is the reason we are having problems
> because we are requiring version 2.13? Do we really need to require that
> version of autoconf, or can we make due with earlier versions?
>
> Just questions,
>
> Ryan
>
> On Thu, 20 Jan 2000, David Reid wrote:
>
> > BeOS on PPC had similar problems with the highest common build being
2.12,
> > but someone helped me out with a 2.13 build and it's fine now.
Highlights
> > an interesting problem for non-unix platforms though doesn't it. (Sorry
to
> > keep banging on about it...)
> >
> > d.
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Wilfredo Sanchez" <ws...@apple.com>
> > To: <ne...@apache.org>
> > Sent: Thursday, January 20, 2000 8:45 PM
> > Subject: Re: How to build 2.0 with autoconf
> >
> >
> > > | build/buildcheck.sh: libtool: not found
> > >
> > > This will be great fun on Mac OS X where we have a command called
> > > libtool than isn't GNU libtool. (No, we're no stupid, this comes
> > > from NeXT which has been using that name since well before GNU
> > > libtool existed.)
> > >
> > > -Fred
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Wilfredo Sanchez, wsanchez@apple.com
> > > Apple Computer, Inc., Core Operating Systems / BSD
> > > Open Source Engineering Lead
> > > 1 Infinite Loop, 302-4K, Cupertino, CA 95014
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
> Come to the first official Apache Software Foundation
> Conference!!! <http://ApacheCon.Com/>
>
>
____________________________________________________________________________
___
> Ryan Bloom rbb@ntrnet.net
> 2121 Stonehenge Dr. Apt #3
> Raleigh, NC 27615 Ryan Bloom -- thinker, adventurer, artist,
> writer, but mostly, friend.
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----
>
Re: How to build 2.0 with autoconf
Posted by Sascha Schumann <sa...@schumann.cx>.
On Fri, Jan 21, 2000 at 02:16:46PM -0500, Bill Stoddard wrote:
> > > >I didn't think we were ever talking about Windows. Windows is
> > > >creating it's own Header and Makefiles for Apache 2.0, because there
> > > >is no autoconf for Windows.
> > >
> > > Yes there is. I used to have it installed on the machine that I had
> > > before this one. I don't remember where I got it, though.
> >
> > Allow me to re-phrase this then. I do not know of an automake that will
> > work with Visual C++ Makefiles.
> >
> I don't recommend we spend time on automake/autoconf, et. al. for Windows
> UNLESS it encourages more people to do Apache for Windows development. I
> don't think that is likely though.
I think bash/m4 were ported to Windows before. libtool also
supports the Cygwin environment, so basically building on
Windows should be possible.
There are some things missing in os/win32 though in order to
make it work with the new autoconf scheme.
--
Regards,
Sascha Schumann
Consultant
Re: How to build 2.0 with autoconf
Posted by Bill Stoddard <st...@raleigh.ibm.com>.
> > >I didn't think we were ever talking about Windows. Windows is
> > >creating it's own Header and Makefiles for Apache 2.0, because there
> > >is no autoconf for Windows.
> >
> > Yes there is. I used to have it installed on the machine that I had
> > before this one. I don't remember where I got it, though.
>
> Allow me to re-phrase this then. I do not know of an automake that will
> work with Visual C++ Makefiles.
>
I don't recommend we spend time on automake/autoconf, et. al. for Windows
UNLESS it encourages more people to do Apache for Windows development. I
don't think that is likely though.
Bill
Re: How to build 2.0 with autoconf
Posted by rb...@apache.org.
> >I didn't think we were ever talking about Windows. Windows is
> >creating it's own Header and Makefiles for Apache 2.0, because there
> >is no autoconf for Windows.
>
> Yes there is. I used to have it installed on the machine that I had
> before this one. I don't remember where I got it, though.
Allow me to re-phrase this then. I do not know of an automake that will
work with Visual C++ Makefiles.
Ryan
Come to the first official Apache Software Foundation
Conference!!! <http://ApacheCon.Com/>
_______________________________________________________________________________
Ryan Bloom rbb@ntrnet.net
2121 Stonehenge Dr. Apt #3
Raleigh, NC 27615 Ryan Bloom -- thinker, adventurer, artist,
writer, but mostly, friend.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Re: How to build 2.0 with autoconf
Posted by Greg Marr <gr...@alum.wpi.edu>.
> > Apache 1.3 for Win32 never used APACI, so why is it a bad thing
> to not use
> > autoconf today? That is faulty logic. Heck... did Win32 even use
> > Configuration. Hrm... looking at the repository, it doesn't seem
> so.
> > Makefile_win32.txt specifically builds a number of modules using
> makefiles
> > down in src/os/win32/.
> >
> > In other words: Apache 1.3 for Win32 had *NO* automated
> configuration
> > tool. It was all done manually.
>
>I didn't think we were ever talking about Windows. Windows is
>creating it's own Header and Makefiles for Apache 2.0, because there
>is no autoconf for Windows.
Yes there is. I used to have it installed on the machine that I had
before this one. I don't remember where I got it, though.
--
Greg Marr
gregm@alum.wpi.edu
"We thought you were dead."
"I was, but I'm better now." - Sheridan, "The Summoning"
Re: How to build 2.0 with autoconf
Posted by Sascha Schumann <sa...@schumann.cx>.
On Fri, Jan 21, 2000 at 01:50:53PM -0000, David Reid wrote:
> I have to say that I agree with Ryan on this. Having some platforms using
> one mechanism and other using something "home-grown" is a recipe for
> disaster. Windows is a different case and we should essentially ignore it.
>
> Autoconf seems to work OK, it just needs some fiddling to get it working as
> it needs to for other non-unix platforms, and I suspect the same will be
> true of some of the more exotic unix platforms out there.
David, you asked me some questions privately. Sorry, I didn't
have time to answer them all (I've just returned from the PDM
in Tel Aviv). Were they answered by someone else in the mean
time?
> Libtool? If it's going to produce more problems than it solves then lets
> find something else. If a home grown solution is going to work then lets do
> that.
There are benefits in improving (read adding support for
more platforms) libtool:
- libtool is well maintained by other people, so we don't
lose time doing it ourselves
- the whole Open Source community benefits, because our
improvements can be used by other projects
> As much as I hate to bring up decisions (not a strong point within the group
> :-)) we probably need to make one before too long.
Well, I think it's pretty clear what I think about the issue.
Nevertheless, I value your opinion and your input on it.
--
Regards,
Sascha Schumann
Consultant
Re: How to build 2.0 with autoconf
Posted by David Reid <ab...@dial.pipex.com>.
I have to say that I agree with Ryan on this. Having some platforms using
one mechanism and other using something "home-grown" is a recipe for
disaster. Windows is a different case and we should essentially ignore it.
Autoconf seems to work OK, it just needs some fiddling to get it working as
it needs to for other non-unix platforms, and I suspect the same will be
true of some of the more exotic unix platforms out there.
Libtool? If it's going to produce more problems than it solves then lets
find something else. If a home grown solution is going to work then lets do
that.
As much as I hate to bring up decisions (not a strong point within the group
:-)) we probably need to make one before too long. Maintaining 2
configuration methods will slow down other work that should be done so we
can move onto a beta. Also people tend to get on with solving the problems
quicker when they have no choice than when they don't.
d.
----- Original Message -----
From: <rb...@apache.org>
To: <ne...@apache.org>
Sent: Friday, January 21, 2000 1:40 PM
Subject: Re: How to build 2.0 with autoconf
>
> > Why can't you just use something other than libtool? I don't see that
you
> > need to throw the baby out with the bathwater.
>
> Because the current configuration stuff is built around libtools
> interface. Our old mechanism doesn't work the same way libtool does to
> the best of my knowledge. We either need to use libtool on all platforms,
> or use the old mechanism on all platforms.
>
> > We already have the technology for building libraries on all platforms.
We
> > just wanted to stop maintaining it, in favor or leveraging libtool. If
> > libtool does not work, then just use the old mechanism. At least we gain
> > some leverage for platforms X and Y, despite not supporting Z.
>
> I think this is a bad idea. I would rather continue to use our own
> machanism for building libraries on different platforms than use libtool
> on some platforms and support our own machanism on others.
>
> > Apache 1.3 for Win32 never used APACI, so why is it a bad thing to not
use
> > autoconf today? That is faulty logic. Heck... did Win32 even use
> > Configuration. Hrm... looking at the repository, it doesn't seem so.
> > Makefile_win32.txt specifically builds a number of modules using
makefiles
> > down in src/os/win32/.
> >
> > In other words: Apache 1.3 for Win32 had *NO* automated configuration
> > tool. It was all done manually.
>
> I didn't think we were ever talking about Windows. Windows is creating
> it's own Header and Makefiles for Apache 2.0, because there is no autoconf
> for Windows. This was known when we started the work, and we decided that
> was okay because 1.3 had the same limitation. However, OS/2 and BeOS have
> used the APACI and Configure scripts since they were ported. This makes
> it look like we are taking a step backwards on those platforms. One of
> the biggest problems with the 2.0 work is that it hasn't been tested on
> many platforms. How many other platforms don't have an up-to-date libtool
> and automake? Are we going to end up with one build process for Unix and
> a separate process for every other platform? I would rather just use
> autoconf and skip libtool.
>
> I am not advocating getting rid of libtool today. I am suggesting that we
> look seriously at how many platforms will need a work around for libtool.
> If it is just Unix platforms that can use libtool, then we need to
> seriously re-consider getting rid of libtool and just using our own
> mechanism. I think we should keep autoconf. It solves mroe problems than
> it causes, and when used properly it can make things easier.
>
> > These complaints about how we should toss autoconf simply because it
> > doesn't work on My Pet Platform are a bit faulty. Just use the old,
manual
> > mechanism, or integrate the old mechanism into the current autoconf
> > process. All that technology is still in the CVS repository... nobody
has
> > deleted it yet.
>
> I hate to bring this up, but this sounds an awful lot like the #if versus
> #ifdef argument. Except that you were on the other side of the argument
> with that one. For people who program on multiple paltforms (ME!), it
> will be a real PITA if I have to remember which platform uses libtool and
> which uses our own mechanism. I think we need to find one solution that
> works everywhere (or as close to it as possible) and stick with it.
>
> Ryan
>
>
> Come to the first official Apache Software Foundation
> Conference!!! <http://ApacheCon.Com/>
>
>
____________________________________________________________________________
___
> Ryan Bloom rbb@ntrnet.net
> 2121 Stonehenge Dr. Apt #3
> Raleigh, NC 27615 Ryan Bloom -- thinker, adventurer, artist,
> writer, but mostly, friend.
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----
>
Re: How to build 2.0 with autoconf
Posted by rb...@apache.org.
> Why can't you just use something other than libtool? I don't see that you
> need to throw the baby out with the bathwater.
Because the current configuration stuff is built around libtools
interface. Our old mechanism doesn't work the same way libtool does to
the best of my knowledge. We either need to use libtool on all platforms,
or use the old mechanism on all platforms.
> We already have the technology for building libraries on all platforms. We
> just wanted to stop maintaining it, in favor or leveraging libtool. If
> libtool does not work, then just use the old mechanism. At least we gain
> some leverage for platforms X and Y, despite not supporting Z.
I think this is a bad idea. I would rather continue to use our own
machanism for building libraries on different platforms than use libtool
on some platforms and support our own machanism on others.
> Apache 1.3 for Win32 never used APACI, so why is it a bad thing to not use
> autoconf today? That is faulty logic. Heck... did Win32 even use
> Configuration. Hrm... looking at the repository, it doesn't seem so.
> Makefile_win32.txt specifically builds a number of modules using makefiles
> down in src/os/win32/.
>
> In other words: Apache 1.3 for Win32 had *NO* automated configuration
> tool. It was all done manually.
I didn't think we were ever talking about Windows. Windows is creating
it's own Header and Makefiles for Apache 2.0, because there is no autoconf
for Windows. This was known when we started the work, and we decided that
was okay because 1.3 had the same limitation. However, OS/2 and BeOS have
used the APACI and Configure scripts since they were ported. This makes
it look like we are taking a step backwards on those platforms. One of
the biggest problems with the 2.0 work is that it hasn't been tested on
many platforms. How many other platforms don't have an up-to-date libtool
and automake? Are we going to end up with one build process for Unix and
a separate process for every other platform? I would rather just use
autoconf and skip libtool.
I am not advocating getting rid of libtool today. I am suggesting that we
look seriously at how many platforms will need a work around for libtool.
If it is just Unix platforms that can use libtool, then we need to
seriously re-consider getting rid of libtool and just using our own
mechanism. I think we should keep autoconf. It solves mroe problems than
it causes, and when used properly it can make things easier.
> These complaints about how we should toss autoconf simply because it
> doesn't work on My Pet Platform are a bit faulty. Just use the old, manual
> mechanism, or integrate the old mechanism into the current autoconf
> process. All that technology is still in the CVS repository... nobody has
> deleted it yet.
I hate to bring this up, but this sounds an awful lot like the #if versus
#ifdef argument. Except that you were on the other side of the argument
with that one. For people who program on multiple paltforms (ME!), it
will be a real PITA if I have to remember which platform uses libtool and
which uses our own mechanism. I think we need to find one solution that
works everywhere (or as close to it as possible) and stick with it.
Ryan
Come to the first official Apache Software Foundation
Conference!!! <http://ApacheCon.Com/>
_______________________________________________________________________________
Ryan Bloom rbb@ntrnet.net
2121 Stonehenge Dr. Apt #3
Raleigh, NC 27615 Ryan Bloom -- thinker, adventurer, artist,
writer, but mostly, friend.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Re: How to build 2.0 with autoconf
Posted by Greg Stein <gs...@lyra.org>.
On Fri, 21 Jan 2000, Brian Havard wrote:
>...
> APR is ok because it only uses autoconf. The main apache config uses
> autoconf/automake/libtool so supporting a platform requires all 3 to be
> ported. There is a good port of autoconf 2.13 for OS/2, automake has been
> replaced(?) but the only port of libtool is "alpha" and too old (v1.2d but
> 1.3.3 is required). So the only options I have right now are to port a
> current libtool myself (yuck!) or abandon the standard configure mechanism
> and do my own as has been done for Win32 (also yuck!). Arrg!
Why can't you just use something other than libtool? I don't see that you
need to throw the baby out with the bathwater.
Keep autoconf. Use the Apache 1.3 mechanism for building your library,
rather than libtool.
We already have the technology for building libraries on all platforms. We
just wanted to stop maintaining it, in favor or leveraging libtool. If
libtool does not work, then just use the old mechanism. At least we gain
some leverage for platforms X and Y, despite not supporting Z.
Apache 1.3 for Win32 never used APACI, so why is it a bad thing to not use
autoconf today? That is faulty logic. Heck... did Win32 even use
Configuration. Hrm... looking at the repository, it doesn't seem so.
Makefile_win32.txt specifically builds a number of modules using makefiles
down in src/os/win32/.
In other words: Apache 1.3 for Win32 had *NO* automated configuration
tool. It was all done manually.
These complaints about how we should toss autoconf simply because it
doesn't work on My Pet Platform are a bit faulty. Just use the old, manual
mechanism, or integrate the old mechanism into the current autoconf
process. All that technology is still in the CVS repository... nobody has
deleted it yet.
Cheers,
-g
--
Greg Stein, http://www.lyra.org/
Re: How to build 2.0 with autoconf
Posted by Brian Havard <br...@kheldar.apana.org.au>.
On Thu, 20 Jan 2000 16:12:22 -0500 (EST), rbb@apache.org wrote:
>I am responding to all three recent messages in this thread here. All
>three are about porting the autoconf build process to non-unix platforms.
>
>1) This is convincing me even more that autoconf is a bad thing. :-)
>
>2) The way to solve all of these problems is to do what was done for
>windows. Create the header file that autoconf would have generated for
>you. This shouldn't be too hard to do.
>
>3) Why are we having this problem now? My understanding was that Apache
>2.0 has been building on BeOS, Mac OS X, and OS/390 for a while. I know
>we just changed the build process to require autoconf for Apache, but
>autoconf has _always_ been required for APR. I am trying to figure things
>out here, not cause problems. Is the reason we are having problems
>because we are requiring version 2.13? Do we really need to require that
>version of autoconf, or can we make due with earlier versions?
APR is ok because it only uses autoconf. The main apache config uses
autoconf/automake/libtool so supporting a platform requires all 3 to be
ported. There is a good port of autoconf 2.13 for OS/2, automake has been
replaced(?) but the only port of libtool is "alpha" and too old (v1.2d but
1.3.3 is required). So the only options I have right now are to port a
current libtool myself (yuck!) or abandon the standard configure mechanism
and do my own as has been done for Win32 (also yuck!). Arrg!
--
______________________________________________________________________________
| Brian Havard | "He is not the messiah! |
| brianh@kheldar.apana.org.au | He's a very naughty boy!" - Life of Brian |
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Re: How to build 2.0 with autoconf
Posted by rb...@apache.org.
I am responding to all three recent messages in this thread here. All
three are about porting the autoconf build process to non-unix platforms.
1) This is convincing me even more that autoconf is a bad thing. :-)
2) The way to solve all of these problems is to do what was done for
windows. Create the header file that autoconf would have generated for
you. This shouldn't be too hard to do.
3) Why are we having this problem now? My understanding was that Apache
2.0 has been building on BeOS, Mac OS X, and OS/390 for a while. I know
we just changed the build process to require autoconf for Apache, but
autoconf has _always_ been required for APR. I am trying to figure things
out here, not cause problems. Is the reason we are having problems
because we are requiring version 2.13? Do we really need to require that
version of autoconf, or can we make due with earlier versions?
Just questions,
Ryan
On Thu, 20 Jan 2000, David Reid wrote:
> BeOS on PPC had similar problems with the highest common build being 2.12,
> but someone helped me out with a 2.13 build and it's fine now. Highlights
> an interesting problem for non-unix platforms though doesn't it. (Sorry to
> keep banging on about it...)
>
> d.
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Wilfredo Sanchez" <ws...@apple.com>
> To: <ne...@apache.org>
> Sent: Thursday, January 20, 2000 8:45 PM
> Subject: Re: How to build 2.0 with autoconf
>
>
> > | build/buildcheck.sh: libtool: not found
> >
> > This will be great fun on Mac OS X where we have a command called
> > libtool than isn't GNU libtool. (No, we're no stupid, this comes
> > from NeXT which has been using that name since well before GNU
> > libtool existed.)
> >
> > -Fred
> >
> >
> > --
> > Wilfredo Sanchez, wsanchez@apple.com
> > Apple Computer, Inc., Core Operating Systems / BSD
> > Open Source Engineering Lead
> > 1 Infinite Loop, 302-4K, Cupertino, CA 95014
> >
>
>
Come to the first official Apache Software Foundation
Conference!!! <http://ApacheCon.Com/>
_______________________________________________________________________________
Ryan Bloom rbb@ntrnet.net
2121 Stonehenge Dr. Apt #3
Raleigh, NC 27615 Ryan Bloom -- thinker, adventurer, artist,
writer, but mostly, friend.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Re: How to build 2.0 with autoconf
Posted by Wilfredo Sanchez <ws...@apple.com>.
Apache 2.0 has not built on Mac OS X yet to my knowledge; I've
not had a chance to try it yet. Mac OS X is supposed to GM in the
summer, and if Apache 2.0 will be ready for prime time before then,
we'll probably use it. In the meantime, I have to make sure 1.3
works before I move to 2.0. (Assuming I got SSL working, the only
thing left is figuring out what to do about case-insensitivity in
HFS+.)
This libtool problem is something I need to figure out. I've
known for a long time than one day it would bite us, and Apache 2.0
is going to be it. I may still be able to rename our libtool, for
example, though I'll probably get clobbered for it.
I believe the reason we're having problems is that it's new and
somewhat complicated, and it will take some time and effort to sort
it out, as such things often do.
-Fred
| From: rbb@apache.org
| Date: 2000-01-20 13:14:28 -0800
| To: new-httpd@apache.org
| Subject: Re: How to build 2.0 with autoconf
| Reply-to: new-httpd@apache.org
| In-reply-to: <01...@jetnet.co.uk>
| X-Sender: rbb@shell.ntrnet.net
| Sender: new-httpd-owner@apache.org
|
|
| I am responding to all three recent messages in this thread here. All
| three are about porting the autoconf build process to non-unix
platforms.
|
| 1) This is convincing me even more that autoconf is a bad thing. :-)
|
| 2) The way to solve all of these problems is to do what was done for
| windows. Create the header file that autoconf would have generated for
| you. This shouldn't be too hard to do.
|
| 3) Why are we having this problem now? My understanding was that
Apache
| 2.0 has been building on BeOS, Mac OS X, and OS/390 for a while.
I know
| we just changed the build process to require autoconf for Apache, but
| autoconf has _always_ been required for APR. I am trying to
figure things
| out here, not cause problems. Is the reason we are having problems
| because we are requiring version 2.13? Do we really need to
require that
| version of autoconf, or can we make due with earlier versions?
|
| Just questions,
|
| Ryan
--
Wilfredo Sanchez, wsanchez@apple.com
Apple Computer, Inc., Core Operating Systems / BSD
Open Source Engineering Lead
1 Infinite Loop, 302-4K, Cupertino, CA 95014
Re: How to build 2.0 with autoconf
Posted by David Reid <ab...@dial.pipex.com>.
BeOS on PPC had similar problems with the highest common build being 2.12,
but someone helped me out with a 2.13 build and it's fine now. Highlights
an interesting problem for non-unix platforms though doesn't it. (Sorry to
keep banging on about it...)
d.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Wilfredo Sanchez" <ws...@apple.com>
To: <ne...@apache.org>
Sent: Thursday, January 20, 2000 8:45 PM
Subject: Re: How to build 2.0 with autoconf
> | build/buildcheck.sh: libtool: not found
>
> This will be great fun on Mac OS X where we have a command called
> libtool than isn't GNU libtool. (No, we're no stupid, this comes
> from NeXT which has been using that name since well before GNU
> libtool existed.)
>
> -Fred
>
>
> --
> Wilfredo Sanchez, wsanchez@apple.com
> Apple Computer, Inc., Core Operating Systems / BSD
> Open Source Engineering Lead
> 1 Infinite Loop, 302-4K, Cupertino, CA 95014
>
Re: How to build 2.0 with autoconf
Posted by Wilfredo Sanchez <ws...@apple.com>.
| build/buildcheck.sh: libtool: not found
This will be great fun on Mac OS X where we have a command called
libtool than isn't GNU libtool. (No, we're no stupid, this comes
from NeXT which has been using that name since well before GNU
libtool existed.)
-Fred
--
Wilfredo Sanchez, wsanchez@apple.com
Apple Computer, Inc., Core Operating Systems / BSD
Open Source Engineering Lead
1 Infinite Loop, 302-4K, Cupertino, CA 95014
How to build 2.0 with autoconf
Posted by Manoj Kasichainula <ma...@io.com>.
This has been stated a few times, but not with a clear Subject:
header. :)
On Thu, Jan 20, 2000 at 11:11:12AM -0700, pg@sweng.stortek.com wrote:
> OK. How do I do this?
cd src
./buildconf
./configure --options
make
I'm not planning to dump it into a README, because it's going to
change once APACI/Configure is removed.
> And when will autoconf be able to deal with shadow directories?
If it hasn't already been done, when someone codes it.