Re: RFC: removal of bsd and osx Makefiles
Hi Lukas, On Fri, May 09, 2014 at 10:32:39PM +0200, Lukas Tribus wrote: Since there seemed to be no objection, I'd rather remove them before the release. Do you already have a patch ready for this or should I get rid of them now (and update the README) ? Agreed. I didn't prepare a patch for this yet, so you can go ahead. OK done :-) Willy
Re: RFC: removal of bsd and osx Makefiles
Hi Lukas, Reviving this old thread. On Mon, Apr 14, 2014 at 11:24:53AM +0200, Lukas Tribus wrote: this is to request comments regarding the removal of bsd and osx Makfiles. Its was proposed by Willy Tarreau, the reason are: - osx and bsd Makefiles don't support USE flag, so they can't be used if SSL, ZLIB and other specific features requiring USE flags are needed - it can be confusing for the users having multiple Makefiles - GNU make (gmake) is commonly used noawdays - regressions in bsd and osx Makefiles are reported very late (also see [1]) I agree with Willy's proposal. (...) Since there seemed to be no objection, I'd rather remove them before the release. Do you already have a patch ready for this or should I get rid of them now (and update the README) ? Thanks, Willy
RE: RFC: removal of bsd and osx Makefiles
Hi Willy, Hi Lukas, Reviving this old thread. On Mon, Apr 14, 2014 at 11:24:53AM +0200, Lukas Tribus wrote: this is to request comments regarding the removal of bsd and osx Makfiles. Its was proposed by Willy Tarreau, the reason are: - osx and bsd Makefiles don't support USE flag, so they can't be used if SSL, ZLIB and other specific features requiring USE flags are needed - it can be confusing for the users having multiple Makefiles - GNU make (gmake) is commonly used noawdays - regressions in bsd and osx Makefiles are reported very late (also see [1]) I agree with Willy's proposal. (...) Since there seemed to be no objection, I'd rather remove them before the release. Do you already have a patch ready for this or should I get rid of them now (and update the README) ? Agreed. I didn't prepare a patch for this yet, so you can go ahead. Thanks, Lukas
Re: RFC: removal of bsd and osx Makefiles
On Monday, April 14, 2014, Lukas Tribus luky...@hotmail.com wrote: Hi list, this is to request comments regarding the removal of bsd and osx Makfiles. Its was proposed by Willy Tarreau, the reason are: - osx and bsd Makefiles don't support USE flag, so they can't be used if SSL, ZLIB and other specific features requiring USE flags are needed - it can be confusing for the users having multiple Makefiles - GNU make (gmake) is commonly used noawdays - regressions in bsd and osx Makefiles are reported very late (also see [1]) I agree with Willy's proposal. I'm wondering whether we should not simply remove these files at all, as it seems that everyone is using gmake nowadays, so their presence is more confusing than anything else, and the occasional breakage they cause is always reported very late. Yes, its also a additional maintenance burden plus those makefiles lack support of the USE flags, so they become less and less useful anyway. Agreed. Anyone has any objection against removing these files which do not even offer the option to enable SSL ? Any comments appreciated. I work for two OS X based companies, one does maintain a couple Linux boxes, but overall prefers BSD and has an upcoming project to deploy haproxy 1.5 in production (the timing of the other thread on the subject was very welcome). My question would be whether the GNU make Makefiles fully support OS X BSD. Thanks, -- Morgan --- http://makkintosshu.com/ http://seriesparts.com/ http://rikuwoiku.com/ http://unna.org/
Re: RFC: removal of bsd and osx Makefiles
Hi Morgan, On Thu, Apr 17, 2014 at 07:17:19AM -0400, Morgan Aldridge wrote: On Monday, April 14, 2014, Lukas Tribus luky...@hotmail.com wrote: Hi list, this is to request comments regarding the removal of bsd and osx Makfiles. Its was proposed by Willy Tarreau, the reason are: - osx and bsd Makefiles don't support USE flag, so they can't be used if SSL, ZLIB and other specific features requiring USE flags are needed - it can be confusing for the users having multiple Makefiles - GNU make (gmake) is commonly used noawdays - regressions in bsd and osx Makefiles are reported very late (also see [1]) I agree with Willy's proposal. I'm wondering whether we should not simply remove these files at all, as it seems that everyone is using gmake nowadays, so their presence is more confusing than anything else, and the occasional breakage they cause is always reported very late. Yes, its also a additional maintenance burden plus those makefiles lack support of the USE flags, so they become less and less useful anyway. Agreed. Anyone has any objection against removing these files which do not even offer the option to enable SSL ? Any comments appreciated. I work for two OS X based companies, one does maintain a couple Linux boxes, but overall prefers BSD and has an upcoming project to deploy haproxy 1.5 in production (the timing of the other thread on the subject was very welcome). My question would be whether the GNU make Makefiles fully support OS X BSD. Yes they do (or if they fail they need to be fixed). The BSD makefiles do not even support SSL nor gzip, so they're lagging a lot behind. Please check using gmake on your system and enable USE_OPENSSL=1 and USE_ZLIB=1 , then run haproxy -vv. Do the same using make (or pmake) and compare the outputs. You should easily find some extra features supported by the GNU makefile. Regards, Willy
RE: RFC: removal of bsd and osx Makefiles
Hi, Migrating to linux. Like Willy explained, BSD and OSX continue to be fully supported with GNU make, the proposal is just to drop the specific Makefiles, which is obsolete anyway, because of a lot of missing features (like zlib). This will actually simplify building haproxy under OSX and BSD, because there will be no more ambiguity between different makefiles. Regards, Lukas
Re: RFC: removal of bsd and osx Makefiles
Migrating to linux. El 14/04/2014 06:28, Lukas Tribus luky...@hotmail.com escribió: Hi list, this is to request comments regarding the removal of bsd and osx Makfiles. Its was proposed by Willy Tarreau, the reason are: - osx and bsd Makefiles don't support USE flag, so they can't be used if SSL, ZLIB and other specific features requiring USE flags are needed - it can be confusing for the users having multiple Makefiles - GNU make (gmake) is commonly used noawdays - regressions in bsd and osx Makefiles are reported very late (also see [1]) I agree with Willy's proposal. I'm wondering whether we should not simply remove these files at all, as it seems that everyone is using gmake nowadays, so their presence is more confusing than anything else, and the occasional breakage they cause is always reported very late. Yes, its also a additional maintenance burden plus those makefiles lack support of the USE flags, so they become less and less useful anyway. Agreed. Anyone has any objection against removing these files which do not even offer the option to enable SSL ? Any comments appreciated. Regards, Lukas [1] http://haproxy.1wt.eu/git?p=haproxy.git;a=commit;h=01193d6efbb731dd83eeb9addc14cecb16c431af
RFC: removal of bsd and osx Makefiles
Hi list, this is to request comments regarding the removal of bsd and osx Makfiles. Its was proposed by Willy Tarreau, the reason are: - osx and bsd Makefiles don't support USE flag, so they can't be used if SSL, ZLIB and other specific features requiring USE flags are needed - it can be confusing for the users having multiple Makefiles - GNU make (gmake) is commonly used noawdays - regressions in bsd and osx Makefiles are reported very late (also see [1]) I agree with Willy's proposal. I'm wondering whether we should not simply remove these files at all, as it seems that everyone is using gmake nowadays, so their presence is more confusing than anything else, and the occasional breakage they cause is always reported very late. Yes, its also a additional maintenance burden plus those makefiles lack support of the USE flags, so they become less and less useful anyway. Agreed. Anyone has any objection against removing these files which do not even offer the option to enable SSL ? Any comments appreciated. Regards, Lukas [1] http://haproxy.1wt.eu/git?p=haproxy.git;a=commit;h=01193d6efbb731dd83eeb9addc14cecb16c431af
