Re: svn commit: r158303 - httpd/httpd/trunk/buildconf
At 06:38 PM 3/21/2005, Justin Erenkrantz wrote: Since moving to Subversion, having apr and apr-util at the same level as httpd is my typical working copy layout, so I'm definitely +1 on this change. srclib/apr and srclib/apr-util don't really make sense anymore, IMO. -- justin Yup, my srclib contains symlinks to apr-1.1 etc. But they are symlinks since my tree containing httpd-2.1, -2.0, -1.3 also contains apr-0.9, 1.0, 1.1 etc. Given than apr-1.0.1 release unpacks as apr-1.0.1 I'm not that comfortable making 'apr' and 'apr-util' path assumptions for the user. I'd be much -more- comfortable assuming ../apr-1 and ../apr-util-1 assumptions. FWIW the old layout didn't work that well under cvs, either. Checkout on a tag tried to inflict the same tag on apr etc. Bill
Re: svn commit: r158303 - httpd/httpd/trunk/buildconf
At 11:11 PM 3/21/2005, Paul Querna wrote: Yep, i was tried of passing --with-apr and --with-apr-util to ./buildconf -- this has nothing to do with ./config.nice, and I thought making a ./buildconf.nice would of been a little excessive. Of course! Now I'm on the same page with you. Actually, I believe a buildconf.nice is a better solution (for reasons in my other note.) We really have no say-so about what is sitting in the directory above our httpd snapshot.
Re: svn commit: r158303 - httpd/httpd/trunk/buildconf
--On Tuesday, March 22, 2005 3:22 PM -0600 William A. Rowe, Jr. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Of course! Now I'm on the same page with you. Actually, I believe a buildconf.nice is a better solution (for reasons in my other note.) We really have no say-so about what is sitting in the directory above our httpd snapshot. It only matters if the directory is present and contains the files we need. I just think a buildconf.nice would be overkill here. -- justin
buildconf.nice, WAS: Re: svn commit: r158303 - httpd/httpd/trunk/buildconf
Justin Erenkrantz wrote: --On Tuesday, March 22, 2005 3:22 PM -0600 William A. Rowe, Jr. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Of course! Now I'm on the same page with you. Actually, I believe a buildconf.nice is a better solution (for reasons in my other note.) We really have no say-so about what is sitting in the directory above our httpd snapshot. It only matters if the directory is present and contains the files we need. I just think a buildconf.nice would be overkill here. -- justin I find myself agreeing with that... Sander
Re: svn commit: r158303 - httpd/httpd/trunk/buildconf
At 04:02 PM 3/22/2005, Justin Erenkrantz wrote: --On Tuesday, March 22, 2005 3:22 PM -0600 William A. Rowe, Jr. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It only matters if the directory is present and contains the files we need. I just think a buildconf.nice would be overkill here. -- justin Are we certain ../apr/ doesn't contain apr 0.9? If it does, will we proceed with alternatives? If so I can drop my objection, however silly I still think this is :)
Re: svn commit: r158303 - httpd/httpd/trunk/buildconf
At 11:26 PM 3/19/2005, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Author: pquerna Date: Sat Mar 19 21:26:22 2005 New Revision: 158303 URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewcvs?view=revrev=158303 Log: Test for APR and APR-Util one directory bellow httpd too. I like not having to put them inside srclib. grumf I'm not keen on this change, since it complicates things unnecessarily - some day we discover a tag and roll organized like this out of the blue? Does config.nice not do what you want? Especially if you rename it config.me with all your absolute options that you don't tweak?
Re: svn commit: r158303 - httpd/httpd/trunk/buildconf
On Mon, Mar 21, 2005 at 05:19:56PM -0600, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote: grumf I'm not keen on this change, since it complicates things unnecessarily - some day we discover a tag and roll organized like this out of the blue? Does config.nice not do what you want? Especially if you rename it config.me with all your absolute options that you don't tweak? Since moving to Subversion, having apr and apr-util at the same level as httpd is my typical working copy layout, so I'm definitely +1 on this change. srclib/apr and srclib/apr-util don't really make sense anymore, IMO. -- justin
Re: svn commit: r158303 - httpd/httpd/trunk/buildconf
William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote: At 11:26 PM 3/19/2005, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Author: pquerna Date: Sat Mar 19 21:26:22 2005 New Revision: 158303 URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewcvs?view=revrev=158303 Log: Test for APR and APR-Util one directory bellow httpd too. I like not having to put them inside srclib. grumf I'm not keen on this change, since it complicates things unnecessarily - some day we discover a tag and roll organized like this out of the blue? What do you mean? I thought that the future goal was to unbundle apr* in httpd releases? So you're afraid of tagged and rolled (actually only rolled, since tags don't include apr* anyway) tarballs that don't contain srclib/apr* before we actually wish to unbundle? Isn't that the RM's responsibility? Does config.nice not do what you want? Especially if you rename it config.me with all your absolute options that you don't tweak? I don't see how that would help towards the unbundling goal. Also for development purposes it's way more convenient to allow apr* next to httpd as to require it be in srclib/. Sander
Re: svn commit: r158303 - httpd/httpd/trunk/buildconf
Sander Striker wrote: William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote: At 11:26 PM 3/19/2005, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Author: pquerna Date: Sat Mar 19 21:26:22 2005 New Revision: 158303 URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewcvs?view=revrev=158303 Log: Test for APR and APR-Util one directory bellow httpd too. I like not having to put them inside srclib. grumf I'm not keen on this change, since it complicates things unnecessarily - some day we discover a tag and roll organized like this out of the blue? What do you mean? I thought that the future goal was to unbundle apr* in httpd releases? So you're afraid of tagged and rolled (actually only rolled, since tags don't include apr* anyway) tarballs that don't contain srclib/apr* before we actually wish to unbundle? Isn't that the RM's responsibility? My feeling is that it is the RM's responsibility. It does tell you which APR/APR-Util path it is using, so it doesn't leave you completely clueless. Does config.nice not do what you want? Especially if you rename it config.me with all your absolute options that you don't tweak? I don't see how that would help towards the unbundling goal. Also for development purposes it's way more convenient to allow apr* next to httpd as to require it be in srclib/. Yep, i was tried of passing --with-apr and --with-apr-util to ./buildconf -- this has nothing to do with ./config.nice, and I thought making a ./buildconf.nice would of been a little excessive. -Paul
