mamfelt at gmail
Feb 6, 2012, 11:47 PM
Post #27 of 30
On Tue, Feb 7, 2012 at 6:51 AM, William A. Rowe Jr. <wrowe [at] rowe-clan>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,
> >> and apr-util in parallel, it will be easy enough to choose
> >> like --build-apr=../apr-1.4.5
For what my vote is worth (nada I expect ;) , as I do not 'contribute',
+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
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?