Re: AC_CHECK_LIB issues under maintainer mode (Was: Re: Tagging 2.4.29 / 2.5.0-{alpha/beta?} today)

2017-10-13 Thread William A Rowe Jr 
Thank you for this summary!

On Oct 13, 2017 10:51, "Jim Jagielski"  wrote:

> Let's recall what is really happening...
>
> In maintainer mode, the build system sets -Werror and -Wstrict-prototypes.
> This means that functions which lack strict prototypes will "fail".
>
> Now note that AC_CHECK_LIB does not worry about generating
> function calls w/ prototypes, so, for example, when checking
> for luaL_newstate, it will fail *even if the function exists*!
> In fact, this is how I 1st observed the issue: mod_lua was
> no longer being included.
>
> The long and short is that under maintainer mode, we cannot
> expect AC_CHECK_LIB to being correct any longer, because
> the combination of -Werror and -Wstrict-prototypes means
> that any and all functions looked for/checked for using
> AC_CHECK_LIB will NOT be found, due to warnings which are
> now fatal errors during configure time, even if those
> functions DO exist.
>
> PS: CCing dev@apr since APR also uses AC_CHECK_LIB
>

AC_CHECK_LIB issues under maintainer mode (Was: Re: Tagging 2.4.29 / 2.5.0-{alpha/beta?} today)

2017-10-13 Thread Jim Jagielski 
Let's recall what is really happening...

In maintainer mode, the build system sets -Werror and -Wstrict-prototypes.
This means that functions which lack strict prototypes will "fail".

Now note that AC_CHECK_LIB does not worry about generating
function calls w/ prototypes, so, for example, when checking
for luaL_newstate, it will fail *even if the function exists*!
In fact, this is how I 1st observed the issue: mod_lua was
no longer being included.

The long and short is that under maintainer mode, we cannot
expect AC_CHECK_LIB to being correct any longer, because
the combination of -Werror and -Wstrict-prototypes means
that any and all functions looked for/checked for using
AC_CHECK_LIB will NOT be found, due to warnings which are
now fatal errors during configure time, even if those
functions DO exist.

PS: CCing dev@apr since APR also uses AC_CHECK_LIB

Re: Tagging 2.4.29 / 2.5.0-{alpha/beta?} today

2017-10-13 Thread Reindl Harald 



Am 13.10.2017 um 17:05 schrieb William A Rowe Jr:
On Oct 13, 2017 08:41, "Stefan Eissing" > wrote:


 > Am 13.10.2017 um 15:19 schrieb William A Rowe Jr
>:
 >
 > Is anyone seeing an issue of concern about stability on 2.4.x branch?

Not any more than in previous releases, I think.

 > Has anyone else looked at Jim's proposed fixes for xcode 9 building
 > under maintainer mode? A couple-line quick fix to configure.in
, that
 > anyone on OS/X should be able to validate in minutes. The same fix
 > is already present on APR's branches, which I will tag as well.

I build in maintainer mode all the time and use Xcode9 since I
upgrade to macOS 10.13. Whatever weirdness I encountered and reported
earlier is gone - I rebuilt my local 2.4.x environment and all seems
well.

I suspect it works because you first configured APR in maintainer mode, 
and httpd inherits cpp flags?


and why does that happen at all for apr-util and httpd?

that means *you can not* build rpm packages for let say sandybridge on a 
machine which has installed apr/apr-util built with -mtune=native on a 
Skylake cluster until you first rebuild apr/apr-util which then means 
you can't build a httpd package optimized for Skylake until you rebuild 
the other both again - that is simply wrong and no other software acts 
that way


https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61417
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61418

Re: Tagging 2.4.29 / 2.5.0-{alpha/beta?} today

2017-10-13 Thread William A Rowe Jr 
On Oct 13, 2017 08:41, "Stefan Eissing" 
wrote:



> Am 13.10.2017 um 15:19 schrieb William A Rowe Jr :
>
> Is anyone seeing an issue of concern about stability on 2.4.x branch?

Not any more than in previous releases, I think.

> Has anyone else looked at Jim's proposed fixes for xcode 9 building
> under maintainer mode? A couple-line quick fix to configure.in, that
> anyone on OS/X should be able to validate in minutes. The same fix
> is already present on APR's branches, which I will tag as well.

I build in maintainer mode all the time and use Xcode9 since I
upgrade to macOS 10.13. Whatever weirdness I encountered and reported
earlier is gone - I rebuilt my local 2.4.x environment and all seems
well.


I suspect it works because you first configured APR in maintainer mode, and
httpd inherits cpp flags?

Jim's proposal fixes httpd configured in maintainer mode when a
conventional APR is present, IIUC.

Re: Tagging 2.4.29 / 2.5.0-{alpha/beta?} today

2017-10-13 Thread Stefan Eissing 


> Am 13.10.2017 um 15:19 schrieb William A Rowe Jr :
> 
> Is anyone seeing an issue of concern about stability on 2.4.x branch?

Not any more than in previous releases, I think.

> Has anyone else looked at Jim's proposed fixes for xcode 9 building
> under maintainer mode? A couple-line quick fix to configure.in, that
> anyone on OS/X should be able to validate in minutes. The same fix
> is already present on APR's branches, which I will tag as well.

I build in maintainer mode all the time and use Xcode9 since I 
upgrade to macOS 10.13. Whatever weirdness I encountered and reported
earlier is gone - I rebuilt my local 2.4.x environment and all seems
well.


> I'll proceed to tag 2.5.0, and 2.4.29 after a couple hour comment
> period, so that the many proposed enhancements can be examined
> by alpha testers and our quick adopters of 2.4.28 can be back on track
> by early next week. That should simplify getting some of the more
> complex patches backported as necessary, or move us forward
> in any case.

Must have missed any 2.5.0 discussion. Do we have any fixes in the pipe
that cannot be in the 2.4.x line? That'd be a shame.

-Stefan

Re: Tagging 2.4.29 / 2.5.0-{alpha/beta?} today

2017-10-13 Thread Jim Jagielski 
Why lump 2.5.0 into all this?

There is no rational reason to force connect 2.4.29 and 2.5.0

Tag 2.4.29 and leave 2.5.0 alone until people discuss it. Until then
I will veto any foolishness about 2.5.0-whatever.

> On Oct 13, 2017, at 9:19 AM, William A Rowe Jr  wrote:
> 
> Is anyone seeing an issue of concern about stability on 2.4.x branch?
> 
> Has anyone else looked at Jim's proposed fixes for xcode 9 building
> under maintainer mode? A couple-line quick fix to configure.in 
> , that
> anyone on OS/X should be able to validate in minutes. The same fix
> is already present on APR's branches, which I will tag as well.
> 
> I'll proceed to tag 2.5.0, and 2.4.29 after a couple hour comment
> period, so that the many proposed enhancements can be examined
> by alpha testers and our quick adopters of 2.4.28 can be back on track
> by early next week. That should simplify getting some of the more
> complex patches backported as necessary, or move us forward
> in any case.
> 
>

Tagging 2.4.29 / 2.5.0-{alpha/beta?} today

2017-10-13 Thread William A Rowe Jr 
Is anyone seeing an issue of concern about stability on 2.4.x branch?

Has anyone else looked at Jim's proposed fixes for xcode 9 building
under maintainer mode? A couple-line quick fix to configure.in, that
anyone on OS/X should be able to validate in minutes. The same fix
is already present on APR's branches, which I will tag as well.

I'll proceed to tag 2.5.0, and 2.4.29 after a couple hour comment
period, so that the many proposed enhancements can be examined
by alpha testers and our quick adopters of 2.4.28 can be back on track
by early next week. That should simplify getting some of the more
complex patches backported as necessary, or move us forward
in any case.