On 06/23/2016 05:49 PM, William A Rowe Jr wrote: > On Thu, Jun 23, 2016 at 10:24 AM, William A Rowe Jr <wr...@rowe-clan.net > <mailto:wr...@rowe-clan.net>> wrote: > > So digging deeper, this just seemed odd until I found... > > On Thu, Jun 23, 2016 at 10:05 AM, William A Rowe Jr <wr...@rowe-clan.net > <mailto:wr...@rowe-clan.net>> wrote: > > On Thu, Jun 23, 2016 at 6:13 AM, Jens Schleusener > <jens.schleuse...@t-online.de > <mailto:jens.schleuse...@t-online.de>> 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
So I guess lets backport the acinclude.m4 part of 1396440. Regards Rüdiger
