On Thu, Jun 23, 2016 at 10:24 AM, William A Rowe Jr <[email protected]>
wrote:

> So digging deeper, this just seemed odd until I found...
>
> On Thu, Jun 23, 2016 at 10:05 AM, William A Rowe Jr <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Jun 23, 2016 at 6:13 AM, Jens Schleusener <
>> [email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> Just for curiosity I copied the soure code via
>>>
>>>  svn checkout http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/httpd/httpd/branches/2.4.x
>>>
>>>  src/httpd-2.4.x> ./buildconf
>>>
>>>  src/httpd-2.4.x> ./configure --enable-mods-shared=few
>>>
>>>  configure: loading site script /usr/share/site/x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu
>>>  checking for chosen layout... Apache
>>>  [... many lines deleted ...]
>>>  checking whether to enable mod_proxy_express... no (few)
>>>  checking whether to enable mod_proxy_hcheck... checking dependencies
>>>  configure: WARNING: "mod_proxy is disabled but required for
>>> mod_proxy_hcheck"
>>>  checking whether to enable mod_proxy_hcheck... configure: error:
>>>  mod_proxy_hcheck has been requested but can not be built due to
>>> prerequisite failures
>>>
>>> So it appears not the identical but a similar failure compared to that
>>> one I reported some days ago ("Small problem in "configure" script with
>>> 2.4.21"): Now "mod_watchdog" is replaced by "mod_proxy".
>>>
>>> And again: Since the option "--enable-mods-shared=few" doesn't include
>>> any "proxy"-related modules I also don't expect to build the "reverse-proxy
>>> health-check module".
>>>
>>> I am not sure if there is still a problem or if my "configure" building
>>> and testing is incorrect.
>>>
>>
>> There is still a problem, and it relates to a special case handling
>> of the underlying 'few' token. Found it, more updates shortly...
>>
>
>   case "$enable_proxy_hcheck" in
>     yes|static|shared)
>       _apmod_required="yes"
>       ;;
>     *)
>       case "$module_selection" in
>       reallyall|all|most)
>         _apmod_required="no"
>         ;;
>       *)
>         _apmod_required="yes"
>         ;;
>       esac
>   esac
>
> What is going on here is that choosing few|none actually causes
> every module dependency mismatch to become fatal, even if the
> specific modules are not requested.
>
> I believe this should be reduced in every module's test to simply;
>
>   case "$enable_proxy_hcheck" in
>     yes|static|shared)
>       _apmod_required="yes"
>       ;;
>     *)
>       _apmod_required="no"
>   esac
>
> Comments?
>

Well, a +1 from trawick, anyways...

http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=revision&revision=1396440

Thus, Jim, you couldn't see this issue pop on trunk, because it was fixed
almost 4 years ago.

Reply via email to