[PATCH] update find_ap{ru}.m4 for ap{ru}-1-config was Re: 1.0.0 RC4 (apr-config - apr-1-config)
--On Wednesday, July 14, 2004 10:24 PM +0100 Max Bowsher [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Joe Orton wrote:
On Wed, Jul 14, 2004 at 04:12:29PM +0100, Max Bowsher wrote:
David Reid wrote:
Tarballs available at http://www.apache.org/~dreid/
Test report!
RC4 is still installing prefix/bin/apr-config , so making it impossible
to
install apr 0 and apr 1 side-by-side.
Known issue, will get fixed sometime after 1.0.0 once everything else
has been hooked up to use apr-1-config.
I'm unsure whether my m4 skills are sufficient, but since this is of
interest to me as I package apr for cygwin, I'm going to work on this, to
ideally get it done for apr 1.0.0, if I can, if not, helping to get it done
in 1.0.1 at the latest.
Tweak find_apr.m4 to look for apr-1-config then look for apr-config. None
of
these projects you mention need any changes other than a new find_ap{ru}.m4.
They all use $apr_config *after* find_ap{ru}.m4 runs. That's why we designed
find_ap{ru}.m4 in the way we did - so that changes like this are extremely
non-intrusive.
Update those find_ap{ru}.m4 in projects that have it, then you're done.
Completely untested patch attached. I hope my mailer doesn't do anything
stupid with it, but you should get the gist of it. -- justin
Index: apr/build/find_apr.m4
===
RCS file: /home/cvs/apr/build/find_apr.m4,v
retrieving revision 1.14
diff -u -r1.14 find_apr.m4
--- apr/build/find_apr.m4 5 Nov 2002 22:09:19 - 1.14
+++ apr/build/find_apr.m4 15 Jul 2004 03:38:35 -
@@ -56,9 +56,15 @@
AC_MSG_ERROR([--with-apr requires a directory to be provided])
fi
-if $TEST_X $withval/bin/apr-config; then
+if $TEST_X $withval/bin/apr-1-config; then
+ apr_found=yes
+ apr_config=$withval/bin/apr-1-config
+elif $TEST_X $withval/bin/apr-config; then
apr_found=yes
apr_config=$withval/bin/apr-config
+elif $TEST_X $withval/apr-1-config; then
+ apr_found=yes
+ apr_config=$withval/apr-1-config
elif $TEST_X $withval/apr-config; then
apr_found=yes
apr_config=$withval/apr-config
@@ -78,19 +84,26 @@
apr_temp_abs_srcdir=`cd $1 pwd`
apr_found=reconfig
if test -n $2; then
-apr_config=$2/apr-config
+apr_config=$2/apr-1-config
else
-apr_config=$1/apr-config
+apr_config=$1/apr-1-config
fi
fi
if test $apr_found = no test -n $3 test $3 = 1; then
- if apr-config --help /dev/null 21 ; then
+ if apr-1-config --help /dev/null 21 ; then
+apr_found=yes
+apr_config=apr-1-config
+ elif apr-config --help /dev/null 21 ; then
apr_found=yes
apr_config=apr-config
else
dnl look in some standard places (apparently not in builtin/default)
for lookdir in /usr /usr/local /opt/apr /usr/local/apache2 ; do
- if $TEST_X $lookdir/bin/apr-config; then
+ if $TEST_X $lookdir/bin/apr-1-config; then
+apr_found=yes
+apr_config=$lookdir/bin/apr-1-config
+break
+ elif $TEST_X $lookdir/bin/apr-config; then
apr_found=yes
apr_config=$lookdir/bin/apr-config
break
Index: apr-util/build/find_apu.m4
===
RCS file: /home/cvs/apr-util/build/find_apu.m4,v
retrieving revision 1.7
diff -u -r1.7 find_apu.m4
--- apr-util/build/find_apu.m4 5 Nov 2002 22:13:42 - 1.7
+++ apr-util/build/find_apu.m4 15 Jul 2004 03:38:09 -
@@ -52,9 +52,16 @@
AC_MSG_ERROR([--with-apr-util requires a directory to be provided])
fi
-if test -x $withval/bin/apu-config; then
+if test -x $withval/bin/apu-1-config; then
+ apu_found=yes
+ apu_config=$withval/bin/apu-1-config
+elif test -x $withval/bin/apu-config; then
apu_found=yes
apu_config=$withval/bin/apu-config
+elif test -x $withval/apu-1-config; then
+ dnl Already configured build dir
+ apu_found=yes
+ apu_config=$withval/apu-1-config
elif test -x $withval/apu-config; then
dnl Already configured build dir
apu_found=yes
@@ -76,19 +83,26 @@
if test -d $1; then
apu_found=reconfig
if test -n $2; then
-apu_config=$2/apu-config
+apu_config=$2/apu-1-config
else
-apu_config=$1/apu-config
+apu_config=$1/apu-1-config
fi
fi
if test $apu_found = no test -n $3 test $3 = 1; then
- if apu-config --help /dev/null 21 ; then
+ if apu-1-config --help /dev/null 21 ; then
+apu_found=yes
+apu_config=apu-1-config
+ elif apu-config --help /dev/null 21 ; then
apu_found=yes
apu_config=apu-config
else
dnl look in the some standard places (apparently not in
builtin/default)
for lookdir in /usr /usr/local /opt/apr /usr/local/apache2 ; do
- if test -x $lookdir/bin/apu-config; then
+
Re: [PATCH] update find_ap{ru}.m4 for ap{ru}-1-config was Re: 1.0.0 RC4 (apr-config - apr-1-config)
On Thu, Jul 15, 2004 at 10:38:06AM +0100, Max Bowsher wrote:
3) It only implements accept apr-0 or apr-1, but unless projects do extra
compatibility work, and make sure to *never* expose the apr ABI in their own
ABI, they will want accept apr-0 only or accept apr-1 only.
Yes, this is the key problem. Patch below is the logic I like; I
haven't done find_apu.m4.
I don't think it's worth having configure copy ap[ru]-config to
ap[ru]-1-config just to add another failure case here; just assume that
whatever version of APR/util is bundled is a suitable one.
--- build/find_apr.m4 5 Nov 2002 22:09:19 - 1.14
+++ build/find_apr.m4 15 Jul 2004 09:54:55 -
@@ -6,7 +6,8 @@
dnl embedding APR into the application source, or locating an installed
dnl copy of APR.
dnl
-dnl APR_FIND_APR([srcdir [, builddir, implicit-install-check]])
+dnl APR_FIND_APR([srcdir [, builddir, implicit-install-check]],
+dnl [min-version], [max-version])
dnl
dnl where srcdir is the location of the bundled APR source directory, or
dnl empty if source is not bundled.
@@ -17,6 +18,10 @@
dnl where implicit-install-check set to 1 indicates if there is no
dnl --with-apr option specified, we will look for installed copies.
dnl
+dnl where min-version and max-version specify the mininum and maximum
acceptable
+dnl APR major version numbers which can be used, e.g. 0, 1 allows use of
+dnl either APR 0.9 or APR 1.0; 1, 1 allows use of only APR 1.0.
+dnl
dnl Sets the following variables on exit:
dnl
dnl apr_found : yes, no, reconfig
@@ -40,6 +45,15 @@
AC_DEFUN(APR_FIND_APR, [
apr_found=no
+ apr_minver=$4
+ apr_maxver=$5
+ if test -z ${apr_minver}; then
+apr_minver=0
+ fi
+ if test -z ${apr_maxver}; then
+apr_maxver=1
+ fi
+
if test $ac_cv_emxos2 = yes; then
# Scripts don't pass test -x on OS/2
TEST_X=test -f
@@ -55,14 +69,19 @@
if test $withval = no || test $withval = yes; then
AC_MSG_ERROR([--with-apr requires a directory to be provided])
fi
-
-if $TEST_X $withval/bin/apr-config; then
+
+if test $apr_maxver = 1 $TEST_X $withval/bin/apr-1-config; then
+ apr_found=yes
+ apr_config=$withval/bin/apr-1-config
+elif test $apr_minver = 0 $TEST_X $withval/bin/apr-config; then
apr_found=yes
apr_config=$withval/bin/apr-config
elif $TEST_X $withval/apr-config; then
+ # Already-configured build directory: presume version is suitable
apr_found=yes
apr_config=$withval/apr-config
elif $TEST_X $withval $withval --help /dev/null 21 ; then
+ # Full path to apr-config script: presume version is suitable
apr_found=yes
apr_config=$withval
fi
@@ -84,13 +103,20 @@
fi
fi
if test $apr_found = no test -n $3 test $3 = 1; then
- if apr-config --help /dev/null 21 ; then
+ if test $apr_maxver = 1 apr-1-config --help /dev/null 21 ;
then
+apr_found=yes
+apr_config=apr-1-config
+ elif test $apr_minver = 0 apr-config --help /dev/null 21 ;
then
apr_found=yes
apr_config=apr-config
else
dnl look in some standard places (apparently not in builtin/default)
for lookdir in /usr /usr/local /opt/apr /usr/local/apache2 ; do
- if $TEST_X $lookdir/bin/apr-config; then
+ if test $apr_maxver = 1 $TEST_X $lookdir/bin/apr-1-config;
then
+apr_found=yes
+apr_config=$lookdir/bin/apr-1-config
+break
+ elif test $apr_minver = 0 $TEST_X $lookdir/bin/apr-config;
then
apr_found=yes
apr_config=$lookdir/bin/apr-config
break
Re: 1.0.0 RC4 (apr-config - apr-1-config)
Joe Orton wrote: On Wed, Jul 14, 2004 at 11:45:31PM +0100, David Reid wrote: OK, so big decision - 1) we delay 1.0.0 until we fix this 2) we aim for a 1.0.1 with this fixed in like 2 weeks or so... (This would also, inevitably, include some other stuff we don't have in 1.0.0) I vote (2). This problem has existed forever, requires a fair bit of testing to fix properly. +1 on release of 1.0.0 RC4 tarballs, tested apr and apr-util OK on the usual bunch of random boxes here. Please don't. The problem is nearly solved - I'll have a patch out for review by the end of today. As for testing, this is a fairly localized change, fairly easy to review and be confident of its effects. Additionally, it requires a change to the arguments of the APR_FIND_APR autoconf macro. It will be far less painful for external to require find_apr.m4 from apr-1 rather than find_apr.m4 from apr-1.0.1 or later. APR 1.0 has taken quite a while to happen - it would be a great shame to push it out the door just ahead of an important interface change. Max.
Re: [PATCH] update find_ap{ru}.m4 for ap{ru}-1-config was Re: 1.0.0 RC4 (apr-config - apr-1-config)
On Thu, Jul 15, 2004 at 11:02:13AM +0100, Joe Orton wrote: -dnl APR_FIND_APR([srcdir [, builddir, implicit-install-check]]) +dnl APR_FIND_APR([srcdir [, builddir, implicit-install-check]], +dnl [min-version], [max-version]) +dnl where min-version and max-version specify the mininum and maximum acceptable +dnl APR major version numbers which can be used, e.g. 0, 1 allows use of +dnl either APR 0.9 or APR 1.0; 1, 1 allows use of only APR 1.0. The minimum version field does need to accept two digits. A project could use an API added in APR 1.X, in which case e.g. APR_FIND_APR(,,, 1.4, 3) would be appropriate and necessary. No?
Re: [PATCH] update find_ap{ru}.m4 for ap{ru}-1-config was Re: 1.0.0 RC4 (apr-config - apr-1-config)
On Thu, Jul 15, 2004 at 05:34:33AM -0700, Noah Misch wrote: On Thu, Jul 15, 2004 at 11:02:13AM +0100, Joe Orton wrote: -dnl APR_FIND_APR([srcdir [, builddir, implicit-install-check]]) +dnl APR_FIND_APR([srcdir [, builddir, implicit-install-check]], +dnl [min-version], [max-version]) +dnl where min-version and max-version specify the mininum and maximum acceptable +dnl APR major version numbers which can be used, e.g. 0, 1 allows use of +dnl either APR 0.9 or APR 1.0; 1, 1 allows use of only APR 1.0. The minimum version field does need to accept two digits. A project could use an API added in APR 1.X, in which case e.g. APR_FIND_APR(,,, 1.4, 3) would be appropriate and necessary. No? Sure, that would be useful, much more complicated to implement though since you have to start parsing the arguments and --version output etc. Handling just the major version is sufficient for the moment I think... joe
Re: [PATCH] update find_ap{ru}.m4 for ap{ru}-1-config was Re: 1.0.0 RC4 (apr-config - apr-1-config)
--On Thursday, July 15, 2004 10:38 AM +0100 Max Bowsher [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
1) It doesn't update configure.in / Makefile.in to name apr-config
apr-MAJOR-config in the build directory.
Well, that doesn't matter to our external projects. (And, huh, it's already
named like that for me when it's installed.)
2) It assumes bundled apr will be apr-1. We want to make find_apr.m4
independent of apr version, so that in the future, it could be installed
into a system aclocal directory (thanks to noahmcit on #apr for pointing
this out).
No, that doesn't matter: if you want to assume bundled APR is less than 1.0,
use the same find_ap{ru}.m4 you are right now.
3) It only implements accept apr-0 or apr-1, but unless projects do extra
compatibility work, and make sure to *never* expose the apr ABI in their own
ABI, they will want accept apr-0 only or accept apr-1 only.
Again, not a concern at all. If you want to accept apr-0 *only*, then don't
upgrade to this find_ap{ru}.m4.
It's not like all of the projects would magically upgrade to this: they have
to choose to upgrade to this m4 version. -- justin
Re: [PATCH] update find_ap{ru}.m4 for ap{ru}-1-config was Re: 1.0.0 RC4 (apr-config - apr-1-config)
--On Thursday, July 15, 2004 5:34 AM -0700 Noah Misch [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The minimum version field does need to accept two digits. A project could use an API added in APR 1.X, in which case e.g. APR_FIND_APR(,,, 1.4, 3) would be appropriate and necessary. No? If a project wants that level of specificity, they can call $apr_config after calling APR_FIND_APR to reject versions they find unsuitable. But, you can't have parallel installs of APR with the same major version number. -- justin
Re: [PATCH] update find_ap{ru}.m4 for ap{ru}-1-config was Re: 1.0.0 RC4 (apr-config - apr-1-config)
At 10:09 AM 7/15/2004, Justin Erenkrantz wrote: --On Thursday, July 15, 2004 5:34 AM -0700 Noah Misch [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The minimum version field does need to accept two digits. A project could use an API added in APR 1.X, in which case e.g. APR_FIND_APR(,,, 1.4, 3) would be appropriate and necessary. No? If a project wants that level of specificity, they can call $apr_config after calling APR_FIND_APR to reject versions they find unsuitable. But, you can't have parallel installs of APR with the same major version number. -- justin APR_FIND_APR returns only the first apr found - what 'list of found apr's' do you suggest the author validate against to determine where apr-1(.1) lives? Bill
Re: [PATCH] update find_ap{ru}.m4 for ap{ru}-1-config was Re: 1.0.0 RC4 (apr-config - apr-1-config)
--On Thursday, July 15, 2004 12:01 PM -0500 William A. Rowe, Jr. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: APR_FIND_APR returns only the first apr found - what 'list of found apr's' do you suggest the author validate against to determine where apr-1(.1) lives? They shouldn't. The granularity is at the major level not at the minor or patch level. If the user wants to override detection, they can shoot themselves in the foot by passing the path explicitly. -- justin
Re: [PATCH] update find_ap{ru}.m4 for ap{ru}-1-config was Re: 1.0.0 RC4 (apr-config - apr-1-config)
--On Thursday, July 15, 2004 6:15 PM +0100 Max Bowsher [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Well, actually, it does. It allows you to build a project against an external, built, but uninstalled apr. William Rowe indicated in IRC that he finds the feature very useful, so I'm not going to scrap it when I've already written the code to make it continue to work. No, what you are talking about is what is installed in the builddir. It doesn't matter. We're going to use it regardless of what major version it is because the packager decided it was the 'right' version to use. Hence, adding the -major- detection for the bundled copy is rather pointless and something Joe caught on in my patch. -- justin
Re: 1.0.0 RC4
On Tue, 2004-07-13 at 22:16 +0100, David Reid wrote: Tarballs available at http://www.apache.org/~dreid/ Test report! Good on FreeBSD 4.5-release. Good on Lunar-Linux. Good on FreeBSD-5.2-current. (enabled threads by default, correctly!) Failed on FreeBSD 5.2.1-p7: When '--enable-threads' is passed, the final shared object does not link against libc_r: $ ldd .libs/libapr-1.so.0 .libs/libapr-1.so.0: libcrypt.so.2 = /lib/libcrypt.so.2 (0x28176000) However, using `nm` to look at libapr, it shows that it is looking for all the undefined pthread_* functions. The 'libapr-1.la' file shows: # Libraries that this one depends upon. dependency_libs=' -lcrypt' It looks like the recent changes to apr_build.m4(r1.64-r1.67) to disable threads by default on older FreeBSDs broke the linking for when threads where enabled? If you try to build test/testall, it will fail because of undefined symbols(all the pthread functions). This machine currently has libc_r globaly mapped to libkse, and it is using a Worker MPM HTTPd perfectly fine. (built before the changes to apr_build.m4). If --enable-threads is not passed, RC4 otherwise seems good on FreeBSD- 5.2.1-p7 Not sure if this should be a showstopper. It has worked in this configuration before. Fix, or release as is? Also, the tagged CHANGES file is missing the entry for these apr_build.m4 changes. There is a correct entry in HEAD. -Paul Querna
Re: 1.0.0 RC4
--On Tuesday, July 13, 2004 8:32 PM -0700 Paul Querna [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Failed on FreeBSD 5.2.1-p7: When '--enable-threads' is passed, the final shared object does not link against libc_r: $ ldd .libs/libapr-1.so.0 .libs/libapr-1.so.0: libcrypt.so.2 = /lib/libcrypt.so.2 (0x28176000) It's a bug in the libtool that David rolled with (not a 'bug' but a 'feature' in libtool as they try to be our nanny). It strips out libc_r (see around line 1358 in David's libtool version). However, libtool 1.5.6 from /usr/ports works fine for me (re-run buildconf). We could either document it (as you have to pass --enable-threads to trigger this), or try to upgrade the libtool we roll with. IIRC, there are some reasons why we've been avoiding upgrading to 1.5 - so I recommend we document 1.4.3 with --enable-threads on FreeBSD 5.2 is busted for 1.0.0 and figure out libtool 1.5+ for APR 1.1 (or 1.0.1) at this stage of the game. -- justin
Re: 1.0.0 RC4
On Tue, Jul 13, 2004 at 09:22:34PM -0700, Justin Erenkrantz wrote: --On Tuesday, July 13, 2004 8:32 PM -0700 Paul Querna [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Failed on FreeBSD 5.2.1-p7: When '--enable-threads' is passed, the final shared object does not link against libc_r: $ ldd .libs/libapr-1.so.0 .libs/libapr-1.so.0: libcrypt.so.2 = /lib/libcrypt.so.2 (0x28176000) It's a bug in the libtool that David rolled with (not a 'bug' but a 'feature' in libtool as they try to be our nanny). It strips out libc_r (see around line 1358 in David's libtool version). Does an object created by gcc -pthread -shared have the correct DT_NEEDED fields though? I would expect that APR_PTHREADS_CHECK would work this out correctly, if apr_hints.m4 didn't set apr_cv_pthreads_cflags. Paul, can you try: --- build/apr_hints.m4 8 Jul 2004 10:46:02 - 1.67 +++ build/apr_hints.m4 14 Jul 2004 08:08:38 - @@ -147,7 +147,7 @@ apr_cv_pthreads_cflags=none apr_cv_pthreads_lib=-lpthread else - apr_cv_pthreads_cflags=-D_THREAD_SAFE -D_REENTRANT + APR_ADDTO(CPPFLAGS, [-D_THREAD_SAFE -D_REENTRANT]) APR_SETIFNULL(enable_threads, [no]) fi # prevent use of KQueue before FreeBSD 4.8
Re: 1.0.0 RC4
--On Tuesday, July 13, 2004 8:32 PM -0700 Paul Querna [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Failed on FreeBSD 5.2.1-p7: When '--enable-threads' is passed, the final shared object does not link against libc_r: $ ldd .libs/libapr-1.so.0 .libs/libapr-1.so.0: libcrypt.so.2 = /lib/libcrypt.so.2 (0x28176000) It's a bug in the libtool that David rolled with (not a 'bug' but a 'feature' in libtool as they try to be our nanny). It strips out libc_r (see around line 1358 in David's libtool version). I actually uninstalled libtool 1.5 from my box and then installed libtool 1.4 before starting to roll the tarballs following Joe Orton's advise that libtool 1.5 had issues. Go figure. However, libtool 1.5.6 from /usr/ports works fine for me (re-run buildconf). We could either document it (as you have to pass --enable-threads to trigger this), or try to upgrade the libtool we roll with. IIRC, there are some reasons why we've been avoiding upgrading to 1.5 - so I recommend we document 1.4.3 with --enable-threads on FreeBSD 5.2 is busted for 1.0.0 and figure out libtool 1.5+ for APR 1.1 (or 1.0.1) at this stage of the game. -- justin I think we should just document this. People can re-run buildconf if they're on a 5.2.1 system after all. david
Re: 1.0.0 RC4
On Tue, Jul 13, 2004 at 10:16:40PM +0100, David Reid wrote: Tarballs available at http://www.apache.org/~dreid/ Compilation of the apr tests is still broken for MSVC++. This patch fixes it: http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30103 -- Craig Rodrigues http://crodrigues.org [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: 1.0.0 RC4
--On Wednesday, July 14, 2004 9:11 AM +0100 Joe Orton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Does an object created by gcc -pthread -shared have the correct DT_NEEDED fields though? I would expect that APR_PTHREADS_CHECK would work this out correctly, if apr_hints.m4 didn't set apr_cv_pthreads_cflags. Paul, can you try: We're passing libc_r (via -lc_r) to libtool, but libtool just ignores our linking of libc_r. The newer versions of libtool doesn't have that particular brain damage. -- justin
Re: 1.0.0 RC4
David Reid wrote: Tarballs available at http://www.apache.org/~dreid/ Test report! RC4 is still installing prefix/bin/apr-config , so making it impossible to install apr 0 and apr 1 side-by-side. As httpd-2.0.x and subversion-1.x are bound to the 0.9 ABI, it is important to be able to do this! Max.
Re: 1.0.0 RC4
On Wed, Jul 14, 2004 at 04:12:29PM +0100, Max Bowsher wrote: David Reid wrote: Tarballs available at http://www.apache.org/~dreid/ Test report! RC4 is still installing prefix/bin/apr-config , so making it impossible to install apr 0 and apr 1 side-by-side. Known issue, will get fixed sometime after 1.0.0 once everything else has been hooked up to use apr-1-config.
Re: 1.0.0 RC4
--On Wednesday, July 14, 2004 4:15 PM +0100 Joe Orton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: My point is that using gcc -pthread may implicitly add the dependency on -lc_r, regardless of whether -lc_r is specified on the link line, so that's an easy workaround for the libtool behaviour. FWIW, your patch causes it to build correctly. *shrug* -- justin
Re: 1.0.0 RC4
Joe Orton wrote: On Wed, Jul 14, 2004 at 04:12:29PM +0100, Max Bowsher wrote: David Reid wrote: Tarballs available at http://www.apache.org/~dreid/ Test report! RC4 is still installing prefix/bin/apr-config , so making it impossible to install apr 0 and apr 1 side-by-side. Known issue, will get fixed sometime after 1.0.0 once everything else has been hooked up to use apr-1-config. Won't that be too late, because of API compat requirements? Max.
Re: 1.0.0 RC4
On Wed, Jul 14, 2004 at 04:33:14PM +0100, Max Bowsher wrote: Joe Orton wrote: RC4 is still installing prefix/bin/apr-config , so making it impossible to install apr 0 and apr 1 side-by-side. Known issue, will get fixed sometime after 1.0.0 once everything else has been hooked up to use apr-1-config. Won't that be too late, because of API compat requirements? Which answer do you prefer? :) 1. No, apr-config is not part of the API 2. Yes, tough joe
Re: 1.0.0 RC4
At 10:43 AM 7/14/2004, Joe Orton wrote: On Wed, Jul 14, 2004 at 04:33:14PM +0100, Max Bowsher wrote: Joe Orton wrote: RC4 is still installing prefix/bin/apr-config , so making it impossible to install apr 0 and apr 1 side-by-side. Known issue, will get fixed sometime after 1.0.0 once everything else has been hooked up to use apr-1-config. Won't that be too late, because of API compat requirements? Which answer do you prefer? :) 1. No, apr-config is not part of the API 2. Yes, tough I was surprised that you missed #3. It's broke - but you get both pieces. I'm really not teasing - show us the code to fix the complaint. I do find it incredibly amusing and ironic that the same crew fighting with which libtool rev will work?, due to *that* moving target, would endorse either answer 1. or 2. But, I have no intentions of installing apr globally on any box, so it doesn't affect me at all. Every application based on apr that I'm interested in I've always built against a private apr install. (As I say, I'm a vpath build addict.) So... The first group this primarily hurts are devs attempting to build against either, installed side-by-side (still trusting apr-config? outch, you are broke on 1.0.1). Document that they must use apr-1-config, they are fine. Ohhh, also document that they need to rename apr-config out of the way before 1.0 installation, and then copy it back. They are devs, it's not that difficult, and it gets them ready to build against apr 1.0.1. The other group this also hurts are OS packagers, who can't ship apr 1.0.0 as designed. Presuming they want to roll in apache 1.3, 2.0, and svn sometime in the near future, they just need to rejigger the finished set of files. The final group, app users, really won't notice. First, by the time they are ready to adopt an apr 1.0 app, 1.0.1 will be out and this will be fixed, perhaps. Provided the first two groups don't goof on our account. So I'm +1 for -beta, -0 for release. I won't block it. But I certainly hope those, who get so ticked off at the example of libtool's bogosity, would wish less pain and more consistency for _our_ end users. Just not looking forward to the day when Why do my modules fail to build with apxs (-2.0) start to show up on [EMAIL PROTECTED] Bill
Re: 1.0.0 RC4 (apr-config - apr-1-config)
Joe Orton wrote: On Wed, Jul 14, 2004 at 04:12:29PM +0100, Max Bowsher wrote: David Reid wrote: Tarballs available at http://www.apache.org/~dreid/ Test report! RC4 is still installing prefix/bin/apr-config , so making it impossible to install apr 0 and apr 1 side-by-side. Known issue, will get fixed sometime after 1.0.0 once everything else has been hooked up to use apr-1-config. I'm unsure whether my m4 skills are sufficient, but since this is of interest to me as I package apr for cygwin, I'm going to work on this, to ideally get it done for apr 1.0.0, if I can, if not, helping to get it done in 1.0.1 at the latest. Is there anything I've missed out here: apr: Needs the find_apr.m4 machinery fixed to use apr-1-config. apr-util: Needs to adapt to the changes in apr, and have mirrored changes to apu-config (Can this wait until after apr-1.0.0, provided it is done soon after?) httpd-2.0.x: No changes, uses apr-0.9 httpd-HEAD: Needs to adapt to the changed find_apr.m4 (Again, must this be done simultaneously with the apr changes?) subversion: No changes, using apr-0.9, at least as the officially supported version. Max.
Re: 1.0.0 RC4 (apr-config - apr-1-config)
At 04:24 PM 7/14/2004, Max Bowsher wrote: Joe Orton wrote: On Wed, Jul 14, 2004 at 04:12:29PM +0100, Max Bowsher wrote: David Reid wrote: Tarballs available at http://www.apache.org/~dreid/ Test report! RC4 is still installing prefix/bin/apr-config , so making it impossible to install apr 0 and apr 1 side-by-side. Known issue, will get fixed sometime after 1.0.0 once everything else has been hooked up to use apr-1-config. I'm unsure whether my m4 skills are sufficient, but since this is of interest to me as I package apr for cygwin, I'm going to work on this, to ideally get it done for apr 1.0.0, if I can, if not, helping to get it done in 1.0.1 at the latest. Thank you Max! I know that others and I are all willing to review patches. Just be prepared for a little give-and-take in getting them approved :) Is there anything I've missed out here: apr: Needs the find_apr.m4 machinery fixed to use apr-1-config. Sounds right. Folks have asked for a fallback-schema for users who are willing to code alot of #if (APR_MAJOR_VERSION 1) code into their applications. Would be a seperate macro to find apr-1-config, or if not found, then find apr-config. apr-util: Needs to adapt to the changes in apr, and have mirrored changes to apu-config (Can this wait until after apr-1.0.0, provided it is done soon after?) I raised this question - and the answer I heard was that apr + -util + -iconv are all leaving the door together. httpd-HEAD: Needs to adapt to the changed find_apr.m4 (Again, must this be done simultaneously with the apr changes?) subversion: No changes, using apr-0.9, at least as the officially supported version. I'm sure these two both need help (including svn head), but it can occur after APR 1.0.0 is released. Only the warm-fuzzies that it all plays well together would hold anything up. I know that mod_jk2 is also very hokey, I need to spend some time over there after I finish cleaning up some win32 version-foo. Bill
Re: 1.0.0 RC4 (apr-config - apr-1-config)
Joe Orton wrote: On Wed, Jul 14, 2004 at 04:12:29PM +0100, Max Bowsher wrote: David Reid wrote: Tarballs available at http://www.apache.org/~dreid/ Test report! RC4 is still installing prefix/bin/apr-config , so making it impossible to install apr 0 and apr 1 side-by-side. Known issue, will get fixed sometime after 1.0.0 once everything else has been hooked up to use apr-1-config. I'm unsure whether my m4 skills are sufficient, but since this is of interest to me as I package apr for cygwin, I'm going to work on this, to ideally get it done for apr 1.0.0, if I can, if not, helping to get it done in 1.0.1 at the latest. OK, so big decision - 1) we delay 1.0.0 until we fix this 2) we aim for a 1.0.1 with this fixed in like 2 weeks or so... (This would also, inevitably, include some other stuff we don't have in 1.0.0) Vote early, vote often... david
1.0.0 RC4
Tarballs available at http://www.apache.org/~dreid/ Test report! david
Re: 1.0.0 RC4
David Reid wrote: Tarballs available at http://www.apache.org/~dreid/ Test report! RPM builds of apr and apr-util work fine under RHEL3 (you need to rename the archives to get rid of the -rc4 bit first, but this problem will not exist in the final release). +1. Regards, Graham -- smime.p7s Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
Re: 1.0.0 RC4
David Reid wrote: Tarballs available at http://www.apache.org/~dreid/ Test report! Tested RPM build on Yellowdog v3.0.1 (LinuxPPC) and it built fine. +1 again. Regards, Graham -- smime.p7s Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
