You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@httpd.apache.org by "William A. Rowe Jr." <wr...@rowe-clan.net> on 2012/02/05 20:10:03 UTC
Re: [discuss] Bundle apr/apu with 2.4.x
On 2/5/2012 5:15 AM, Kaspar Brand wrote:
>
> The only thing which is a bit unfortunate is the currrent naming of the
> "--with-included-apr" configure option, IMO. What about changing that to:
>
> --with-srclib-apr Use copies of APR/APR-Util in srclib directory
How about
1. deprecating --with-included-apr syntax for...
2. --build-apr=/path syntax, default of '--build-apr=srcdir/apr' where
and when srclib/apr exists. If they would rather check out httpd, apr
and apr-util in parallel, it will be easy enough to choose something
like --build-apr=../apr-1.4.5
Re: [discuss] Bundle apr/apu with 2.4.x
Posted by Jim Jagielski <ji...@jaguNET.com>.
On Feb 5, 2012, at 2:10 PM, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
> How about
>
> 1. deprecating --with-included-apr syntax for...
>
> 2. --build-apr=/path syntax, default of '--build-apr=srcdir/apr' where
> and when srclib/apr exists. If they would rather check out httpd, apr
> and apr-util in parallel, it will be easy enough to choose something
> like --build-apr=../apr-1.4.5
>
++1... Great idea.
Re: [discuss] Bundle apr/apu with 2.4.x
Posted by Michael Felt <ma...@gmail.com>.
oops - should have been:
-1: get it done (i.e. remove)
For what my vote is worth (nada I expect ;) , as I do not 'contribute',
> just package):
> +1 - get it done
>
>
Re: [discuss] Bundle apr/apu with 2.4.x
Posted by Michael Felt <ma...@gmail.com>.
On Tue, Feb 7, 2012 at 6:51 AM, William A. Rowe Jr. <wr...@rowe-clan.net>wrote:
> On 2/6/2012 5:19 PM, Daniel Ruggeri wrote:
> > On 2/5/2012 1:10 PM, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
> >> How about
> >>
> >> 1. deprecating --with-included-apr syntax for...
> >>
> >> 2. --build-apr=/path syntax, default of '--build-apr=srcdir/apr' where
> >> and when srclib/apr exists. If they would rather check out httpd,
> apr
> >> and apr-util in parallel, it will be easy enough to choose
> something
> >> like --build-apr=../apr-1.4.5
> >
>
For what my vote is worth (nada I expect ;) , as I do not 'contribute',
just package):
+1 - get it done
re: APR - as far as packaging is concerned, I am assuming it will not be
included and and making a build/aix /* scripts for both apr and httpd. The
--build-apr seems good, but no "default directory" or you will just get
people saying the download is not complete. e.g., you dont have to install
pcre, zlib, whatever in srclib/* to get httpd to build. Let configure look
in standard locations (not old, i.e. srclib/* standards, but new ones!
(whatevr the project owner decides) just as configure does for everything
else.
However, some extra logic in configure to also look at the LAYOUT being
used could be useful (or does it do that already?)
re: PCRE - from my test packaging it seems the decision was made. configure
fails (for 2.4.0 bundles) without it being installed 'somewhere'. also off
topic with regard to vote on apr I would guess. However, if you are going
to do, then do it. Just make sure there is a test in configure that a
minimum level is installed.
> Can we be sure that the configure script will continue to pass
> > parameters as it does today to these "sub" configure scripts, too?
>
> I thought that would be implicit ;-)
>
> > Also (dare I ask), but where did we end up on the PCRE discussion?
>
> You have dared. I don't know. Perhaps follow the same pragma as above?
>
>
Re: [RESULT] [discuss] Bundle apr/apu with 2.4.x
Posted by Jim Jagielski <ji...@apache.org>.
On Feb 8, 2012, at 2:11 PM, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
> On 2/8/2012 7:44 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
>>
>> I have no desire, on the other-hand, to hold a T&R for the
>> "deprecate --with-included-apr" patch since, to be honest,
>> I doubt if we'll ever see it in timely fashion. I will, however,
>> update configure so that it no longer mentions the httpd-*-deps'
>> file.
>
> Because I was suggesting 'deprecating', not voiding the existing
> behavior, such an enhancement can happen after 2.4.1. No?
>
Yep. That's why I'm not worried about holding things up.
Re: [RESULT] Re: [discuss] Bundle apr/apu with 2.4.x
Posted by "William A. Rowe Jr." <wr...@rowe-clan.net>.
On 2/8/2012 7:44 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
>
> I have no desire, on the other-hand, to hold a T&R for the
> "deprecate --with-included-apr" patch since, to be honest,
> I doubt if we'll ever see it in timely fashion. I will, however,
> update configure so that it no longer mentions the httpd-*-deps'
> file.
Because I was suggesting 'deprecating', not voiding the existing
behavior, such an enhancement can happen after 2.4.1. No?
[RESULT] Re: [discuss] Bundle apr/apu with 2.4.x
Posted by Jim Jagielski <ji...@jaguNET.com>.
+1: Rüdiger, Gün, jim, Rainer, noel.butler, jblond
-1: wrowe, Graham, nick, gstein, stefen, kaspar, mamfelt
So it looks like, both binding and binding/non-binding, it's
close, but that, in general, not-"bundling" is what's desired.
I have no desire, on the other-hand, to hold a T&R for the
"deprecate --with-included-apr" patch since, to be honest,
I doubt if we'll ever see it in timely fashion. I will, however,
update configure so that it no longer mentions the httpd-*-deps'
file.
For me, I consider it a priority to get 2.4.x out...
Re: [discuss] Bundle apr/apu with 2.4.x
Posted by "William A. Rowe Jr." <wr...@rowe-clan.net>.
On 2/7/2012 7:15 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
>
> On Feb 7, 2012, at 12:51 AM, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
>
>> On 2/6/2012 5:19 PM, Daniel Ruggeri wrote:
>>> On 2/5/2012 1:10 PM, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
>>>> How about
>>>>
>>>> 1. deprecating --with-included-apr syntax for...
>>>>
>>>> 2. --build-apr=/path syntax, default of '--build-apr=srcdir/apr' where
>>>> and when srclib/apr exists. If they would rather check out httpd, apr
>>>> and apr-util in parallel, it will be easy enough to choose something
>>>> like --build-apr=../apr-1.4.5
>>>
>>> Can we be sure that the configure script will continue to pass
>>> parameters as it does today to these "sub" configure scripts, too?
>>
>> I thought that would be implicit ;-)
>
> As soon as Bill completes the above, I think we can progress
> with discussions re: T&R 2.4.1.
What was consensus? I'm not really sure I read one; could you
tally the discussion Jim? --build-apr only makes sense if we
strip out 'builtin' srclib/apr.
I was making a suggestion to Kaspar, though :) Spending my time
in the morass of 2.0.65 so that we can T&R the vulnerable code
and call it 'done, final, gone' (or nearly so). That, and getting
patches into mod_ftp and tagging both the long neglected ftp and
fcgid modules for votes. fcgid has some substantial fixes already
in tree.
My 2.4.x time is given over to solving disconnect/reuse socket/
ssl timeout flukes on windows right now, because I really want
to fix any remaining edge cases. I do love hacking at autoconf
magic (heh heh), but can't get to it this moment.
If anyone else wants to play in the .m4 code, please 'steal this
idea' :) Otherwise I am happy to do it, more on a timetable of
early next week though.
Re: [discuss] Bundle apr/apu with 2.4.x
Posted by Jim Jagielski <ji...@jaguNET.com>.
On Feb 7, 2012, at 12:51 AM, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
> On 2/6/2012 5:19 PM, Daniel Ruggeri wrote:
>> On 2/5/2012 1:10 PM, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
>>> How about
>>>
>>> 1. deprecating --with-included-apr syntax for...
>>>
>>> 2. --build-apr=/path syntax, default of '--build-apr=srcdir/apr' where
>>> and when srclib/apr exists. If they would rather check out httpd, apr
>>> and apr-util in parallel, it will be easy enough to choose something
>>> like --build-apr=../apr-1.4.5
>>
>> Can we be sure that the configure script will continue to pass
>> parameters as it does today to these "sub" configure scripts, too?
>
> I thought that would be implicit ;-)
>
Perfect!
As soon as Bill completes the above, I think we can progress
with discussions re: T&R 2.4.1.
Re: [discuss] Bundle apr/apu with 2.4.x
Posted by "William A. Rowe Jr." <wr...@rowe-clan.net>.
On 2/6/2012 5:19 PM, Daniel Ruggeri wrote:
> On 2/5/2012 1:10 PM, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
>> How about
>>
>> 1. deprecating --with-included-apr syntax for...
>>
>> 2. --build-apr=/path syntax, default of '--build-apr=srcdir/apr' where
>> and when srclib/apr exists. If they would rather check out httpd, apr
>> and apr-util in parallel, it will be easy enough to choose something
>> like --build-apr=../apr-1.4.5
>
> Can we be sure that the configure script will continue to pass
> parameters as it does today to these "sub" configure scripts, too?
I thought that would be implicit ;-)
> Also (dare I ask), but where did we end up on the PCRE discussion?
You have dared. I don't know. Perhaps follow the same pragma as above?
Re: [discuss] Bundle apr/apu with 2.4.x
Posted by Daniel Ruggeri <DR...@primary.net>.
On 2/5/2012 1:10 PM, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
> How about
>
> 1. deprecating --with-included-apr syntax for...
>
> 2. --build-apr=/path syntax, default of '--build-apr=srcdir/apr' where
> and when srclib/apr exists. If they would rather check out httpd, apr
> and apr-util in parallel, it will be easy enough to choose something
> like --build-apr=../apr-1.4.5
Can we be sure that the configure script will continue to pass
parameters as it does today to these "sub" configure scripts, too? Also
(dare I ask), but where did we end up on the PCRE discussion?
--
Daniel Ruggeri
Re: [discuss] Bundle apr/apu with 2.4.x
Posted by "William A. Rowe Jr." <wr...@rowe-clan.net>.
On 2/5/2012 1:14 PM, Mads Toftum wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 05, 2012 at 01:10:03PM -0600, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
>> How about
>>
>> 1. deprecating --with-included-apr syntax for...
>>
>> 2. --build-apr=/path syntax, default of '--build-apr=srcdir/apr' where
>> and when srclib/apr exists. If they would rather check out httpd, apr
>> and apr-util in parallel, it will be easy enough to choose something
>> like --build-apr=../apr-1.4.5
>
> I like that idea. Makes more sense than --with-included-apr. For extra
> bonus points make --with-included-apr throw an error suggesting the use
> of --build-apr=srclib/apr
Since we are deprecating, throwing a warning and continuing on should
be sufficient ;)
Re: [discuss] Bundle apr/apu with 2.4.x
Posted by Mads Toftum <ma...@toftum.dk>.
On Sun, Feb 05, 2012 at 01:10:03PM -0600, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
> How about
>
> 1. deprecating --with-included-apr syntax for...
>
> 2. --build-apr=/path syntax, default of '--build-apr=srcdir/apr' where
> and when srclib/apr exists. If they would rather check out httpd, apr
> and apr-util in parallel, it will be easy enough to choose something
> like --build-apr=../apr-1.4.5
I like that idea. Makes more sense than --with-included-apr. For extra
bonus points make --with-included-apr throw an error suggesting the use
of --build-apr=srclib/apr
vh
Mads Toftum
--
http://soulfood.dk