Aaron Bannert wrote: > > On Thu, Jun 28, 2001 at 06:35:29PM -0700, Justin Erenkrantz wrote: > > > What if (random thoughts coming out now), instead of requiring people to > > > build APR (since that seems the biggest source of problems), we don't > > > simply > > > ask them where the tarball is, and then in our configure script, we > > > configure it, and then build it together while building the module... > > > > > > In that way we won't have troubles with previous APR installations/builds, > > > we _know_ what we're going to supply to the APR configure script and we > > > solve all those troubles? > > > > Yup, that's what httpd-2.0 does. Just require them to slap the apr > > sources in srclib (or something like that). > > > > APR isn't standalone just yet. I was shocked when I saw that > > mod_webapp required an install of APR. =) -- justin
No problem, httpd-2.0 installed it for me ;-) > > APR *will* be standalone, but since it is not yet completely stable it > may at random times not be standalone. That may be unsatisfactory for > j-t-c, or maybe that just means that we have to work harder to get > APR to be standalone. > > Last time I built APR standalone for use with j-t-c I didn't have a > problem with it (on Solaris 8/sparc and Linux/RH 7.1/x86). We just have > to have docs that capture all the scenarios (which is much harder to do > in scripts). I am using normaly using the APR (static libraries) resulting of the httpd-2.0 installation. There are always small things to arrange but a part of changes must be done in APR and a smaller part of them in mod_webapp. Using APR sources like httpd-2.0 is dangerous: What will happend when mod_webapp for Apache-2.0 will be available and that httpd-2.0 and mod_webapp use a different APR version sources? APRVARS problably need to be improved, but I am not sure using APR sources instead APR installation really helps. > > Maybe I can post some doc updates from my experiences building that beast. > > -aaron
