Re: mod_brotli in 2.4.x is missing a few Makefile changes

On Apr 30, 2017 12:27 PM, "Jan Ehrhardt" wrote: Gregg Smith in gmane.comp.apache.devel (Sun, 30 Apr 2017 08:54:34 -0700): >On 4/30/2017 5:36 AM, Jan Ehrhardt wrote: > >> The problem with CMake is that it does not build all things, that AL and >> AH put in their distributions.

Re: mod_brotli in 2.4.x is missing a few Makefile changes

On Apr 29, 2017 9:19 PM, "Gregg Smith" wrote: On 4/29/2017 5:19 PM, Gregg Smith wrote: Bill, viewing the complete thread your reasoning here should have > precluded this discussion years ago when pcre went to cmake, so at or > before 2.4.0. After all, it's the only way to build

Re: mod_brotli in 2.4.x is missing a few Makefile changes

Gregg Smith in gmane.comp.apache.devel (Sun, 30 Apr 2017 08:54:34 -0700): >On 4/30/2017 5:36 AM, Jan Ehrhardt wrote: > >> The problem with CMake is that it does not build all things, that AL and >> AH put in their distributions. CMake will build Apr 1.6 and Apr-util >> 1.6, including

Re: mod_brotli in 2.4.x is missing a few Makefile changes

On 4/30/2017 5:36 AM, Jan Ehrhardt wrote: The problem with CMake is that it does not build all things, that AL and AH put in their distributions. CMake will build Apr 1.6 and Apr-util 1.6, including apr_crypto_openssl-1.dll (1.0.2 or 1.1.0) in one go. Yes Jan I realize this but "recommend"

Re: mod_brotli in 2.4.x is missing a few Makefile changes

Jan Ehrhardt in gmane.comp.apache.devel (Sun, 30 Apr 2017 14:36:57 +0200): >*.mak files in apr-util + the Makefile.win's in apr-util\(ces|css) *.mak files in apr-iconv + the Makefile.win's in apr-iconv\(ces|css)

Re: mod_brotli in 2.4.x is missing a few Makefile changes

Gregg Smith in gmane.comp.apache.devel (Sat, 29 Apr 2017 17:19:03 -0700): >I have no problem with "recommending" folks use cmake, none at all. I >find it to be a pain in the backside but that's just me. Others may >share this but I will not stand in the way of simply "recommending" it. >I'm

Re: mod_brotli in 2.4.x is missing a few Makefile changes

On 4/29/2017 5:19 PM, Gregg Smith wrote: Bill, viewing the complete thread your reasoning here should have precluded this discussion years ago when pcre went to cmake, so at or before 2.4.0. After all, it's the only way to build pcre which is a hard requirement, not soft like brotli. I

Re: mod_brotli in 2.4.x is missing a few Makefile changes

On 4/28/2017 9:35 AM, Jan Ehrhardt wrote: William A Rowe Jr in gmane.comp.apache.devel (Fri, 28 Apr 2017 10:30:03 -0500): You might have missed my thought here... suggesting that the CMake not-so-experimental build become recommended for users who want to build all the modules in one go

Re: mod_brotli in 2.4.x is missing a few Makefile changes

On Apr 28, 2017 2:40 PM, "Steffen" wrote: cvtdsp.pl is not a hassle, just a easy step. Quote: you should not need cvtdsp.pl -2005 with VC14. They fixed this in the conversion. Terrific, this is verified?!? Otherwise there is no requirement for a Windows build to have

Re: mod_brotli in 2.4.x is missing a few Makefile changes

cvtdsp.pl is not a hassle, just a easy step. Quote: you should not need cvtdsp.pl -2005 with VC14. They fixed this in the conversion. You mentioned majority. Nope: a majority now provide a cmake option. Bottom line is that I and quite some fellows are sticking with the GUI/dsw/dsp/mak. Oh

Re: mod_brotli in 2.4.x is missing a few Makefile changes

It's not a question of majority - a majority now provide a cmake option. It is a question of dependency, PCRE must be built, PCRE must be configured with cmake, cmake is a mandatory tool for configuring httpd on windows, irrespective of how many times it must be invoked. brotli is a new

Re: mod_brotli in 2.4.x is missing a few Makefile changes

Accurate: I only/must use cmake with pcre and brotli, rest/most is make. No cmake *majority*. > Op 28 apr. 2017 om 18:45 heeft William A Rowe Jr het > volgende geschreven: > >> On Fri, Apr 28, 2017 at 11:35 AM, Jan Ehrhardt wrote: >> William A

Re: mod_brotli in 2.4.x is missing a few Makefile changes

On Fri, Apr 28, 2017 at 11:35 AM, Jan Ehrhardt wrote: > William A Rowe Jr in gmane.comp.apache.devel (Fri, 28 Apr 2017 10:30:03 > -0500): >>You might have missed my thought here... suggesting that the CMake >>not-so-experimental build become recommended for users who want to

Re: mod_brotli in 2.4.x is missing a few Makefile changes

William A Rowe Jr in gmane.comp.apache.devel (Fri, 28 Apr 2017 10:30:03 -0500): >You might have missed my thought here... suggesting that the CMake >not-so-experimental build become recommended for users who want to >build all the modules in one go including the new mod_brotli. People like

Re: mod_brotli in 2.4.x is missing a few Makefile changes

On 04/28/2017 08:08 AM, Steffen wrote: Cmake is a way to go. IDE building is the preferred way to go, all the vs goodies then available. And easy to maintain dsw and dsp etc. Does CMake not provide the nice IDE goodies on your machine? I'm quite happy with it for mod_websocket, and not at

Re: mod_brotli in 2.4.x is missing a few Makefile changes

On Fri, Apr 28, 2017 at 10:05 AM, Jan Ehrhardt wrote: > William A Rowe Jr in gmane.comp.apache.devel (Fri, 28 Apr 2017 09:57:53 > -0500): >>Hmmm... >> >>Building brotli libs requires CMake. >> >>Perhaps only support building mod_brotli through the CMake build, and not >>the

Re: mod_brotli in 2.4.x is missing a few Makefile changes

Agree. Thanks to Gregg, dsp/dsw/makefile mod_brotli is already there in branches 2.4.x. Cmake only needed to build the brotli libs. > Op 28 apr. 2017 om 17:05 heeft Jan Ehrhardt het volgende > geschreven: > > William A Rowe Jr in gmane.comp.apache.devel (Fri, 28 Apr

Re: mod_brotli in 2.4.x is missing a few Makefile changes

This is a trigger again for the old repeating discussion. Cmake is a way to go. IDE building is the preferred way to go, all the vs goodies then available. And easy to maintain dsw and dsp etc. > Op 28 apr. 2017 om 16:55 heeft William A Rowe Jr het > volgende

Re: mod_brotli in 2.4.x is missing a few Makefile changes

William A Rowe Jr in gmane.comp.apache.devel (Fri, 28 Apr 2017 09:57:53 -0500): >Hmmm... > >Building brotli libs requires CMake. > >Perhaps only support building mod_brotli through the CMake build, and not >the legacy build? That would be not very convenient if you want to build Apache with all

Re: mod_brotli in 2.4.x is missing a few Makefile changes

OK, thx for clearing that up. Cheers! > On Apr 28, 2017, at 9:50 AM, Jan Ehrhardt wrote: > > Jim Jagielski in gmane.comp.apache.devel (Fri, 28 Apr 2017 09:29:01 > -0400): >> Are these issues with *building* the brotli library during >> the configure/make of httpd? > > No,

Re: mod_brotli in 2.4.x is missing a few Makefile changes

Hmmm... Building brotli libs requires CMake. Perhaps only support building mod_brotli through the CMake build, and not the legacy build?

Re: mod_brotli in 2.4.x is missing a few Makefile changes

Jan, That is correct. The .dsp is wired to interrelated projects via the .dsw file. Exporting the projects into .mak files causes all the 'depends upon' libs to be added. See any other such as mod_status. If we were building brotli in-tree you would add the libbrotli .dsp and it would resolve

Re: mod_brotli in 2.4.x is missing a few Makefile changes

Jim Jagielski in gmane.comp.apache.devel (Fri, 28 Apr 2017 09:29:01 -0400): >Are these issues with *building* the brotli library during >the configure/make of httpd? No, building the brotli library itself is a CMake thing. Something like CMake -G "Visual Studio 14 2015 Win64"

Re: mod_brotli in 2.4.x is missing a few Makefile changes

This just clicked for me... Are these issues with *building* the brotli library during the configure/make of httpd? Why, exactly, are we doing this if this is, in fact, what we are doing? Just curious why we are taking this dependency on directly. > On Apr 28, 2017, at 9:19 AM, Jan Ehrhardt

Re: mod_brotli in 2.4.x is missing a few Makefile changes

Hi Gregg, Gregg Smith in gmane.comp.apache.devel (Tue, 25 Apr 2017 18:23:50 -0700): >Actually, I'll test here in a while and commit tomorrow. Quote from modules/filters/mod_brotli.dsp > +# ADD LINK32 kernel32.lib brotlicommon.lib brotlienc.lib /nologo > /subsystem:windows /dll /incremental:no

Re: mod_brotli in 2.4.x is missing a few Makefile changes

Jim Jagielski writes: > BTW, there are also deltas for config.m4 in modules/filters mainly > around mod_brotli. At present what is in 2.4 seems to work fine, but > should we consider backporting config.m4 as well? The difference is caused by these four mentioned changes

Re: mod_brotli in 2.4.x is missing a few Makefile changes

On 4/26/2017 7:53 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote: Thanks! Are these the full diffs for Makefile? On Apr 26, 2017, at 10:50 AM, Gregg Smith wrote: On 4/26/2017 4:51 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote: On Apr 25, 2017, at 4:34 PM, Evgeny Kotkov wrote: Hi all, I

Re: mod_brotli in 2.4.x is missing a few Makefile changes

BTW, there are also deltas for config.m4 in modules/filters mainly around mod_brotli. At present what is in 2.4 seems to work fine, but should we consider backporting config.m4 as well?

Re: mod_brotli in 2.4.x is missing a few Makefile changes

Thanks! Are these the full diffs for Makefile? > On Apr 26, 2017, at 10:50 AM, Gregg Smith wrote: > > > On 4/26/2017 4:51 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote: >> >>> On Apr 25, 2017, at 4:34 PM, Evgeny Kotkov >>> wrote: >>> >>> Hi all, >>> >>> I noticed that

Re: mod_brotli in 2.4.x is missing a few Makefile changes

On 4/26/2017 4:51 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote: On Apr 25, 2017, at 4:34 PM, Evgeny Kotkov wrote: Hi all, I noticed that the version of mod_brotli that has been backported to 2.4.x lacks a few Makefile changes from trunk. This results in a failing Unix build when

Re: mod_brotli in 2.4.x is missing a few Makefile changes

> On Apr 25, 2017, at 4:34 PM, Evgeny Kotkov > wrote: > > Hi all, > > I noticed that the version of mod_brotli that has been backported to 2.4.x > lacks a few Makefile changes from trunk. This results in a failing Unix > build when mod_brotli is not being built.

Re: mod_brotli in 2.4.x is missing a few Makefile changes

Actually, I'll test here in a while and commit tomorrow. On 4/25/2017 6:20 PM, Gregg Smith wrote: I have one, command line makefiles and all. I just haven't had time to run a test build yet though lloking at it looks fine, but I like to test first. On 4/25/2017 2:07 PM, Yann Ylavic wrote:

Re: mod_brotli in 2.4.x is missing a few Makefile changes

I have one, command line makefiles and all. I just haven't had time to run a test build yet though lloking at it looks fine, but I like to test first. On 4/25/2017 2:07 PM, Yann Ylavic wrote: Hi Evgeny, On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 10:34 PM, Evgeny Kotkov wrote:

Re: mod_brotli in 2.4.x is missing a few Makefile changes

Hi Evgeny, On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 10:34 PM, Evgeny Kotkov wrote: > > With the backport being in place in the 2.4.x branch, these changes no longer > merge cleanly from trunk. I can prepare a backport nomination for them that > resolves the conflicts and add it to

mod_brotli in 2.4.x is missing a few Makefile changes

Hi all, I noticed that the version of mod_brotli that has been backported to 2.4.x lacks a few Makefile changes from trunk. This results in a failing Unix build when mod_brotli is not being built. Another issue is that by default the CMakeLists.txt file refers to invalid library filenames.