Not sure if this is the most recent mail in this thread I'm replying to,
I saw a couple in a different thread relating to Rob's nss observation,
but my in-box is a mess after my holiday so I'm currently trying to gain
a semblance of order and catch up a bit.
Anyway, Steve and Alan - you've won, I concede :-P the cmake Borg have
assimilated me :-)
I've just done an svn update and a fresh cmake build from scratch and I
ended up with a nice clean qpidd. Actually this has wound up being the
cleanest build I've ever had as previously with automake I'd had to set
LDFLAGS to get it to install on Ubuntu, but after the recent cmake
updates you guys have done it's all squeaky clean.
Nice!! Thanks!!!
One minor comment - and TBH it's been like this forever so isn't
*really* related to the cmake stuff, but here goes...
With the INSTALL instructions in qpid/qpid/cpp the "Building from a
Source Distribution" instructions are fairly near the bottom. I kind of
see the logic of that since the earlier sections are describing
prerequisites, but I wonder if it's worth moving the main install bit
closer to the top with a line that says something like "If you have not
installed qpid previously see prerequisites below". Similarly section
"2.2.2. From Source" might be better in the prerequisites section rather
than the install section, I think that's particularly worthwhile now
because 2.2.2 is talking about an automake build for the dependencies
and the qpid install is now cmake. I know that I did a double take when
I skimmed through and assumed that the instructions hadn't been updated
for cmake until I read again.
It's not necessarily a huge deal, but in terms of weaning people over to
cmake I suspect that the greatest amount of clarity in the install
instructions would be good.
I guess one issue may be that people who've installed several times
probably don't necessarily *read* install instructions so much as skim
them, so useful detail might be missed. Perhaps it might be worth asking
for comments from newbies on the user list to check that the
instructions are clear enough for someone who hasn't done it before??
Thanks again for the quick turnaround on this.
Frase
On 01/04/13 20:28, Alan Conway wrote:
On 04/01/2013 01:48 PM, Steve Huston wrote:
Just to poke in on this...
I guess just mentioning running ldconfig may be OK but it would be
nice to
have it run automatically as the end of make install, don't know if
that's
possible or has undesirable consequences.
It's not always possible, and not always even desirable. I would be
against having make install try to do ldconfig always.
I think this may satisfy everyone: https://reviews.apache.org/r/10223/
No ldconfig needed, installed exes Just Work.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
