You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@apr.apache.org by Justin Erenkrantz <je...@ebuilt.com> on 2001/07/05 03:33:57 UTC
Re: libapr and --disable-shared?
[ Moving to dev@apr ]
On Wed, Jul 04, 2001 at 05:48:42PM -0700, rbb@covalent.net wrote:
>
> APR doesn't install the library correctly yet. Until we fix that, we need
> to use disable shared. It is in the STATUS file to fix the install, and
> make APR a useful external library. :-)
>
> BTW, which packages are you refering to? The only ones I know of
> currently are Apache 2.0 and Subversion. I would love to get a collection
> of known packages using APR.
mod_webapp from Tomcat 4.0 relies on APR. And, they require an
installed version of APR. They don't believe that the installation
doesn't work. =) (I tried convincing them otherwise...)
I think Pier is working on switching mod_webapp to use the source, but I
think J.F. Clere has voted against that in tomcat-dev (not sure though,
he can prolly correct me if I'm misinterpreting his statements).
-- justin
Re: libapr and --disable-shared?
Posted by jean-frederic clere <jf...@fujitsu-siemens.com>.
"Pier P. Fumagalli" wrote:
>
> jean-frederic clere at jfrederic.clere@fujitsu-siemens.com wrote:
> >
> >> DOH! ???? So why do you keep saying that you're against using sources...
> >> Since all those problems are simply fixed by using them....
> >
> > No, I am not against using the APR sources, I was just thinking that the time
> > needed to change mod_webapp could have been used to fix APR. (But it is more
> > complicated that I excepted it).
>
> Do you think I didn't think about it? So, can you roll back that -1 so I can
> commit some changes? Thanks :)
Yes, please commit the changes.
>
> Pier
Re: libapr and --disable-shared?
Posted by jean-frederic clere <jf...@fujitsu-siemens.com>.
"Pier P. Fumagalli" wrote:
>
> jean-frederic clere at jfrederic.clere@fujitsu-siemens.com wrote:
> >
> >> DOH! ???? So why do you keep saying that you're against using sources...
> >> Since all those problems are simply fixed by using them....
> >
> > No, I am not against using the APR sources, I was just thinking that the time
> > needed to change mod_webapp could have been used to fix APR. (But it is more
> > complicated that I excepted it).
>
> Do you think I didn't think about it? So, can you roll back that -1 so I can
> commit some changes? Thanks :)
Yes, please commit the changes.
>
> Pier
Re: libapr and --disable-shared?
Posted by "Pier P. Fumagalli" <pi...@betaversion.org>.
jean-frederic clere at jfrederic.clere@fujitsu-siemens.com wrote:
>
>> DOH! ???? So why do you keep saying that you're against using sources...
>> Since all those problems are simply fixed by using them....
>
> No, I am not against using the APR sources, I was just thinking that the time
> needed to change mod_webapp could have been used to fix APR. (But it is more
> complicated that I excepted it).
Do you think I didn't think about it? So, can you roll back that -1 so I can
commit some changes? Thanks :)
Pier
Re: libapr and --disable-shared?
Posted by rb...@covalent.net.
> > > I am also worried with mod_webapp for Apache-2.0, what will happend when a
> > > internal typedef of APR comming from httpd will be used by mod_webapp and will
> > > be handled differently there because of different APR version?
> >
> > Who said that for Apache 2.0 there will be 2 different versions of APR? I
> > never did (I actually said quite the contrary, that it would be cool to link
> > against the HTTPd binary as they do in BeOS.
>
> Now a day it is a little stricky: to link staticly against httpd we need a
> config.m4 to put in httpd-2.0/modules/web_app and run autoconf to rebuild the
> configure of httpd-2.0...
This is not true. Just use --with-module=generators:/path/to/mod_webapp
on the configure line. This will copy mod_webapp into the generators
directory, and build it statically into Apache. I don't know if this
works for modules with more than one file yet, but the same general logic
could be used if it doesn't, we just need to write an autoconf macro.
Ryan
_____________________________________________________________________________
Ryan Bloom rbb@apache.org
Covalent Technologies rbb@covalent.net
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Re: libapr and --disable-shared?
Posted by "Pier P. Fumagalli" <pi...@betaversion.org>.
jean-frederic clere at jfrederic.clere@fujitsu-siemens.com wrote:
>
>> DOH! ???? So why do you keep saying that you're against using sources...
>> Since all those problems are simply fixed by using them....
>
> No, I am not against using the APR sources, I was just thinking that the time
> needed to change mod_webapp could have been used to fix APR. (But it is more
> complicated that I excepted it).
Do you think I didn't think about it? So, can you roll back that -1 so I can
commit some changes? Thanks :)
Pier
Re: libapr and --disable-shared?
Posted by rb...@covalent.net.
> > > I am also worried with mod_webapp for Apache-2.0, what will happend when a
> > > internal typedef of APR comming from httpd will be used by mod_webapp and will
> > > be handled differently there because of different APR version?
> >
> > Who said that for Apache 2.0 there will be 2 different versions of APR? I
> > never did (I actually said quite the contrary, that it would be cool to link
> > against the HTTPd binary as they do in BeOS.
>
> Now a day it is a little stricky: to link staticly against httpd we need a
> config.m4 to put in httpd-2.0/modules/web_app and run autoconf to rebuild the
> configure of httpd-2.0...
This is not true. Just use --with-module=generators:/path/to/mod_webapp
on the configure line. This will copy mod_webapp into the generators
directory, and build it statically into Apache. I don't know if this
works for modules with more than one file yet, but the same general logic
could be used if it doesn't, we just need to write an autoconf macro.
Ryan
_____________________________________________________________________________
Ryan Bloom rbb@apache.org
Covalent Technologies rbb@covalent.net
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Re: libapr and --disable-shared?
Posted by jean-frederic clere <jf...@fujitsu-siemens.com>.
"Pier P. Fumagalli" wrote:
>
> Copying the Tomcat list.... (barf barf, too much crossposting :) :)
>
> Pier
>
> jean-frederic clere at jfrederic.clere@fujitsu-siemens.com wrote:
> >>
> >> I'm going to do it... And if he remembers his -1, he'll roll back :)
> >
> > Well, I said that the problems we had in mod_webapp due to APR should be
> > solved in APR not in mod_webapp. I think that not a -1 for using APR sources
> > instead APR installation. It is just a matter of configure/makefiles I am sure
> > Pier will not -1 a proposal to support both APR sources and APR installation
> > in mod_webapp.
>
> Right _now_ the only way to be sure to build correctly, is to do it from the
> sources, and so that's what I'm going to do. If, in the future, the build
> and installation process for APR will allow us to build also from a possible
> APR distribution, I'll be more than happy to support it... But now, it's
> better to switch.
>
> > I am also worried with mod_webapp for Apache-2.0, what will happend when a
> > internal typedef of APR comming from httpd will be used by mod_webapp and will
> > be handled differently there because of different APR version?
>
> Who said that for Apache 2.0 there will be 2 different versions of APR? I
> never did (I actually said quite the contrary, that it would be cool to link
> against the HTTPd binary as they do in BeOS.
Now a day it is a little stricky: to link staticly against httpd we need a
config.m4 to put in httpd-2.0/modules/web_app and run autoconf to rebuild the
configure of httpd-2.0...
>
> > I am not every happy to use APR sources in mod_webapp, because I use a "libapr
> > and --disable-shared" for mod_webapp on my test platforms (Linux and
> > ReliantUnix).
>
> Hmmm... That's why you don't want to build mod_webapp using the APR sources?
>
> > It did not work because APR needs some "system libraries". To work-around this
> > problem I have added a LDFLAGS/CFLAGS in mod_webapp makefiles for that. I
> > think that the information about which "system libraries" are neeed should be
> > provided by APR in APRVARS.
>
> You see? How can I get access to APRVARS if I don't use the APR sources?
> Should I just wait for APR to be released as 1.0 to start working on
> mod_webapp again? The _right_ way to do it _now_ is using APR from the
> sources... It's actually the _only_ simple way. As Apache 2.0 does.
Yes I agree.
>
> > I have also tried with a shared libapr, but that was some weeks ago. I
> > remember MM problems and some "system library missing".
>
> DOH! ???? So why do you keep saying that you're against using sources...
> Since all those problems are simply fixed by using them....
No, I am not against using the APR sources, I was just thinking that the time
needed to change mod_webapp could have been used to fix APR. (But it is more
complicated that I excepted it).
>
> Pier
Re: libapr and --disable-shared?
Posted by jean-frederic clere <jf...@fujitsu-siemens.com>.
"Pier P. Fumagalli" wrote:
>
> Copying the Tomcat list.... (barf barf, too much crossposting :) :)
>
> Pier
>
> jean-frederic clere at jfrederic.clere@fujitsu-siemens.com wrote:
> >>
> >> I'm going to do it... And if he remembers his -1, he'll roll back :)
> >
> > Well, I said that the problems we had in mod_webapp due to APR should be
> > solved in APR not in mod_webapp. I think that not a -1 for using APR sources
> > instead APR installation. It is just a matter of configure/makefiles I am sure
> > Pier will not -1 a proposal to support both APR sources and APR installation
> > in mod_webapp.
>
> Right _now_ the only way to be sure to build correctly, is to do it from the
> sources, and so that's what I'm going to do. If, in the future, the build
> and installation process for APR will allow us to build also from a possible
> APR distribution, I'll be more than happy to support it... But now, it's
> better to switch.
>
> > I am also worried with mod_webapp for Apache-2.0, what will happend when a
> > internal typedef of APR comming from httpd will be used by mod_webapp and will
> > be handled differently there because of different APR version?
>
> Who said that for Apache 2.0 there will be 2 different versions of APR? I
> never did (I actually said quite the contrary, that it would be cool to link
> against the HTTPd binary as they do in BeOS.
Now a day it is a little stricky: to link staticly against httpd we need a
config.m4 to put in httpd-2.0/modules/web_app and run autoconf to rebuild the
configure of httpd-2.0...
>
> > I am not every happy to use APR sources in mod_webapp, because I use a "libapr
> > and --disable-shared" for mod_webapp on my test platforms (Linux and
> > ReliantUnix).
>
> Hmmm... That's why you don't want to build mod_webapp using the APR sources?
>
> > It did not work because APR needs some "system libraries". To work-around this
> > problem I have added a LDFLAGS/CFLAGS in mod_webapp makefiles for that. I
> > think that the information about which "system libraries" are neeed should be
> > provided by APR in APRVARS.
>
> You see? How can I get access to APRVARS if I don't use the APR sources?
> Should I just wait for APR to be released as 1.0 to start working on
> mod_webapp again? The _right_ way to do it _now_ is using APR from the
> sources... It's actually the _only_ simple way. As Apache 2.0 does.
Yes I agree.
>
> > I have also tried with a shared libapr, but that was some weeks ago. I
> > remember MM problems and some "system library missing".
>
> DOH! ???? So why do you keep saying that you're against using sources...
> Since all those problems are simply fixed by using them....
No, I am not against using the APR sources, I was just thinking that the time
needed to change mod_webapp could have been used to fix APR. (But it is more
complicated that I excepted it).
>
> Pier
Re: libapr and --disable-shared?
Posted by "Pier P. Fumagalli" <pi...@betaversion.org>.
Copying the Tomcat list.... (barf barf, too much crossposting :) :)
Pier
jean-frederic clere at jfrederic.clere@fujitsu-siemens.com wrote:
>>
>> I'm going to do it... And if he remembers his -1, he'll roll back :)
>
> Well, I said that the problems we had in mod_webapp due to APR should be
> solved in APR not in mod_webapp. I think that not a -1 for using APR sources
> instead APR installation. It is just a matter of configure/makefiles I am sure
> Pier will not -1 a proposal to support both APR sources and APR installation
> in mod_webapp.
Right _now_ the only way to be sure to build correctly, is to do it from the
sources, and so that's what I'm going to do. If, in the future, the build
and installation process for APR will allow us to build also from a possible
APR distribution, I'll be more than happy to support it... But now, it's
better to switch.
> I am also worried with mod_webapp for Apache-2.0, what will happend when a
> internal typedef of APR comming from httpd will be used by mod_webapp and will
> be handled differently there because of different APR version?
Who said that for Apache 2.0 there will be 2 different versions of APR? I
never did (I actually said quite the contrary, that it would be cool to link
against the HTTPd binary as they do in BeOS.
> I am not every happy to use APR sources in mod_webapp, because I use a "libapr
> and --disable-shared" for mod_webapp on my test platforms (Linux and
> ReliantUnix).
Hmmm... That's why you don't want to build mod_webapp using the APR sources?
> It did not work because APR needs some "system libraries". To work-around this
> problem I have added a LDFLAGS/CFLAGS in mod_webapp makefiles for that. I
> think that the information about which "system libraries" are neeed should be
> provided by APR in APRVARS.
You see? How can I get access to APRVARS if I don't use the APR sources?
Should I just wait for APR to be released as 1.0 to start working on
mod_webapp again? The _right_ way to do it _now_ is using APR from the
sources... It's actually the _only_ simple way. As Apache 2.0 does.
> I have also tried with a shared libapr, but that was some weeks ago. I
> remember MM problems and some "system library missing".
DOH! ???? So why do you keep saying that you're against using sources...
Since all those problems are simply fixed by using them....
Pier
Re: libapr and --disable-shared?
Posted by "Pier P. Fumagalli" <pi...@betaversion.org>.
Copying the Tomcat list.... (barf barf, too much crossposting :) :)
Pier
jean-frederic clere at jfrederic.clere@fujitsu-siemens.com wrote:
>>
>> I'm going to do it... And if he remembers his -1, he'll roll back :)
>
> Well, I said that the problems we had in mod_webapp due to APR should be
> solved in APR not in mod_webapp. I think that not a -1 for using APR sources
> instead APR installation. It is just a matter of configure/makefiles I am sure
> Pier will not -1 a proposal to support both APR sources and APR installation
> in mod_webapp.
Right _now_ the only way to be sure to build correctly, is to do it from the
sources, and so that's what I'm going to do. If, in the future, the build
and installation process for APR will allow us to build also from a possible
APR distribution, I'll be more than happy to support it... But now, it's
better to switch.
> I am also worried with mod_webapp for Apache-2.0, what will happend when a
> internal typedef of APR comming from httpd will be used by mod_webapp and will
> be handled differently there because of different APR version?
Who said that for Apache 2.0 there will be 2 different versions of APR? I
never did (I actually said quite the contrary, that it would be cool to link
against the HTTPd binary as they do in BeOS.
> I am not every happy to use APR sources in mod_webapp, because I use a "libapr
> and --disable-shared" for mod_webapp on my test platforms (Linux and
> ReliantUnix).
Hmmm... That's why you don't want to build mod_webapp using the APR sources?
> It did not work because APR needs some "system libraries". To work-around this
> problem I have added a LDFLAGS/CFLAGS in mod_webapp makefiles for that. I
> think that the information about which "system libraries" are neeed should be
> provided by APR in APRVARS.
You see? How can I get access to APRVARS if I don't use the APR sources?
Should I just wait for APR to be released as 1.0 to start working on
mod_webapp again? The _right_ way to do it _now_ is using APR from the
sources... It's actually the _only_ simple way. As Apache 2.0 does.
> I have also tried with a shared libapr, but that was some weeks ago. I
> remember MM problems and some "system library missing".
DOH! ???? So why do you keep saying that you're against using sources...
Since all those problems are simply fixed by using them....
Pier
Re: libapr and --disable-shared?
Posted by rb...@covalent.net.
> I am also worried with mod_webapp for Apache-2.0, what will happend when a
> internal typedef of APR comming from httpd will be used by mod_webapp and will
> be handled differently there because of different APR version?
This is going to be handled by having APR provide a programatic way of
determining what is in the current API library. Not sure this is a good
idea, but it is what the group decided on a while ago.
Ryan
Re: libapr and --disable-shared?
Posted by jean-frederic clere <jf...@fujitsu-siemens.com>.
"Pier P. Fumagalli" wrote:
>
> (me dumb when no reply-to header)
>
> Justin Erenkrantz at jerenkrantz@ebuilt.com wrote:
> >
> > [ Moving to dev@apr ]
>
> >From where ? :)
>
> > On Wed, Jul 04, 2001 at 05:48:42PM -0700, rbb@covalent.net wrote:
> >>
> >> APR doesn't install the library correctly yet. Until we fix that, we need
> >> to use disable shared. It is in the STATUS file to fix the install, and
> >> make APR a useful external library. :-)
> >>
> >> BTW, which packages are you refering to? The only ones I know of
> >> currently are Apache 2.0 and Subversion. I would love to get a collection
> >> of known packages using APR.
> >
> > mod_webapp from Tomcat 4.0 relies on APR. And, they require an
> > installed version of APR. They don't believe that the installation
> > doesn't work. =) (I tried convincing them otherwise...)
>
> Yeah, that's a pain...
>
> > I think Pier is working on switching mod_webapp to use the source, but I
> > think J.F. Clere has voted against that in tomcat-dev (not sure though,
> > he can prolly correct me if I'm misinterpreting his statements).
>
> I'm going to do it... And if he remembers his -1, he'll roll back :)
Well, I said that the problems we had in mod_webapp due to APR should be solved
in APR not in mod_webapp.
I think that not a -1 for using APR sources instead APR installation. It is just
a matter of configure/makefiles I am sure Pier will not -1 a proposal to support
both APR sources and APR installation in mod_webapp.
I am also worried with mod_webapp for Apache-2.0, what will happend when a
internal typedef of APR comming from httpd will be used by mod_webapp and will
be handled differently there because of different APR version?
> Out
> tomorrow or Friday...
I am not every happy to use APR sources in mod_webapp, because I use a "libapr
and --disable-shared" for mod_webapp on my test platforms (Linux and
ReliantUnix).
It did not work because APR needs some "system libraries". To work-around this
problem I have added a LDFLAGS/CFLAGS in mod_webapp makefiles for that. I think
that the information about which "system libraries" are neeed should be provided
by APR in APRVARS.
I have also tried with a shared libapr, but that was some weeks ago. I remember
MM problems and some "system library missing".
>
> Pier
Re: libapr and --disable-shared?
Posted by rb...@covalent.net.
For information's sake, the big problem is MM. I can generate at install
libapr's shared libraries, but since we don't install MM, we have big
problems. It's on my short list now. :-)
Ryan
On Thu, 5 Jul 2001, Pier P. Fumagalli wrote:
> (me dumb when no reply-to header)
>
> Justin Erenkrantz at jerenkrantz@ebuilt.com wrote:
> >
> > [ Moving to dev@apr ]
>
> >From where ? :)
>
> > On Wed, Jul 04, 2001 at 05:48:42PM -0700, rbb@covalent.net wrote:
> >>
> >> APR doesn't install the library correctly yet. Until we fix that, we need
> >> to use disable shared. It is in the STATUS file to fix the install, and
> >> make APR a useful external library. :-)
> >>
> >> BTW, which packages are you refering to? The only ones I know of
> >> currently are Apache 2.0 and Subversion. I would love to get a collection
> >> of known packages using APR.
> >
> > mod_webapp from Tomcat 4.0 relies on APR. And, they require an
> > installed version of APR. They don't believe that the installation
> > doesn't work. =) (I tried convincing them otherwise...)
>
> Yeah, that's a pain...
>
> > I think Pier is working on switching mod_webapp to use the source, but I
> > think J.F. Clere has voted against that in tomcat-dev (not sure though,
> > he can prolly correct me if I'm misinterpreting his statements).
>
> I'm going to do it... And if he remembers his -1, he'll roll back :) Out
> tomorrow or Friday...
>
> Pier
>
>
>
_____________________________________________________________________________
Ryan Bloom rbb@apache.org
Covalent Technologies rbb@covalent.net
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Re: libapr and --disable-shared?
Posted by "Pier P. Fumagalli" <pi...@betaversion.org>.
(me dumb when no reply-to header)
Justin Erenkrantz at jerenkrantz@ebuilt.com wrote:
>
> [ Moving to dev@apr ]
>From where ? :)
> On Wed, Jul 04, 2001 at 05:48:42PM -0700, rbb@covalent.net wrote:
>>
>> APR doesn't install the library correctly yet. Until we fix that, we need
>> to use disable shared. It is in the STATUS file to fix the install, and
>> make APR a useful external library. :-)
>>
>> BTW, which packages are you refering to? The only ones I know of
>> currently are Apache 2.0 and Subversion. I would love to get a collection
>> of known packages using APR.
>
> mod_webapp from Tomcat 4.0 relies on APR. And, they require an
> installed version of APR. They don't believe that the installation
> doesn't work. =) (I tried convincing them otherwise...)
Yeah, that's a pain...
> I think Pier is working on switching mod_webapp to use the source, but I
> think J.F. Clere has voted against that in tomcat-dev (not sure though,
> he can prolly correct me if I'm misinterpreting his statements).
I'm going to do it... And if he remembers his -1, he'll roll back :) Out
tomorrow or Friday...
Pier