On Sat, 16 Dec 2000, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
I guess I don't follow the logic there. How exactly would Windows
developers run the configure script if they did not have Cygwin
installed? Last I checked, perl did not read sh files, so you
would need to have a version of /bin/sh on the
From: Cliff Woolley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday, December 16, 2000 7:48 PM
--- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The Apache Group has looked at Cygwin before. We do not
plan to include
support for Cygwin right now. That may change in the future, but we
dislike the license.
On Sat, 16 Dec 2000, Sascha Schumann wrote:
I had too much free time today, so I created make_export.awk.
During that I noticed that I either lack some awk knowledge
or that the awk's expression mechanism lacks a useful feature
(backreferencing). I've worked around that by
I dislike this idea. I realize (now) that awk is available on Windows,
but Perl is already required to build Apache on Windows, and all of a
sudden we are going to add the requirement of awk too. Why? We already
require Perl on every platform when building Apache, but we do not
currently
When I originally wrote the buildexports stuff, we didn't require Perl to
build Apache, because that file could be generated once and just bundled
with Apache. With the move to create those files during the build steps,
we now require Perl just to build. I think the best solution is to move
I would love to know what it is. The regex isn't that complex, and
regex's in Perl shouldn't have really changed between 5.005_02 and
5.005_03. Hm
I can repeat the same effect on another machine with Red Hat
5.1 (also 5.005_02).
Are we going to raise the entry barrier for
What makes you think the awk solution is any more portable than the Perl
solution? I would much rather determine what is happening than to just
give up on the Perl solution. Please take a look at the definition of
those functions and make sure they actually match the regex. You could
try
On Sat, Dec 16, 2000 at 10:28:07AM -0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I dislike this idea. I realize (now) that awk is available on Windows,
but Perl is already required to build Apache on Windows, and all of a
sudden we are going to add the requirement of awk too. Why? We already
Hmm. Have you noticed apr_MD5Encode and apr_get_home_directory are in there
twice? Is it possible that you're getting doubles? Maybe you have a backup
copy of apr_uuid.h and apr_md5.h in your include directory, and it's picking
them up?
line was not cleared correctly. Whoops. I used the
On Sat, Dec 16, 2000 at 09:27:13PM +0100, Sascha Schumann wrote:
What makes you think the awk solution is any more portable than the Perl
solution? I would much rather determine what is happening than to just
give up on the Perl solution. Please take a look at the definition of
those
We should document that URL for fetching a Windows-compatible AWK. Are there
binary distributions? I'd also be fine redistributing from apache.org so
that people don't have to hunt this stuff down at other sites.
Three candidates (create exactly the same output):
gawk 3.0.6 for Win32:
-Original Message-
From: Mo DeJong [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday, December 16, 2000 3:56 PM
To: dev@apr.apache.org
Subject: Re: [EMAIL PROTECTED]: RE: *.exports in distro bundle, use
of , Perl on Windows (was: Re: make_export.awk)]
I'll change, no problem
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday, December 16, 2000 1:01 PM
When I originally wrote the buildexports stuff, we didn't require Perl to
build Apache, because that file could be generated once and just bundled
with Apache. With the move to create those
13 matches
Mail list logo
