* Greg Stein [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
snip
pffft. Ease up on the veto there. Users don't need autoconf or
libtool. The RM generates those files during the release process.
yeah, and then users have to repair broken ./configure scripts
again and again.
Well, at this point we have no need to
Enrico Weigelt wrote:
yeah, and then users have to repair broken ./configure scripts
again and again.
Really? How often does this actually happen? My experiences with
autoconf have been pretty good down the years and they get better as
people get better at using it. It's certainly not beyond
* Andy Armstrong [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Enrico Weigelt wrote:
yeah, and then users have to repair broken ./configure scripts
again and again.
Really? How often does this actually happen? My experiences with
autoconf have been pretty good down the years and they get better as
people
On Tue, Dec 14, 2004 at 03:58:42AM -0600, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
At 03:33 AM 12/14/2004, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
On Tue, Dec 14, 2004 at 03:20:26AM -0600, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
Seriously, we could target only latest-n-greatest, but that
goes against the grain of many
* Joe Orton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
snip
You must run buildconf to regenerate the APR configure script, which is
the one which configures libtool and has references to egrep. Again, it
looks fine here with autoconf 2.59:
$ cd httpd-2.0.52
$ grep egrep srclib/apr/configure
...
if
* William A. Rowe, Jr. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi,
I think Joe's proposed bumping up to a mandatory autoconf 2.5x (for everyone)
because we keep getting nailed on autoconf 2.13 bugs. That's goodness.
+1 for the RM to use latest and greatest 2.5.x.
Great, but it still doesn't solve such
* Enrico Weigelt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
snip
I've got a fully automated distro builder system which could do nightly
builds in a wide range of environments (currently only linux, but different
kind of libc, other libs, features, etc) completely by itself and run
some test programs over
At 10:20 PM 12/16/2004, Enrico Weigelt wrote:
* William A. Rowe, Jr. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
+1 for the RM to use latest and greatest 2.5.x.
Great, but it still doesn't solve such fatal problems as the grep bug.
And autoconf is not really debuggable for folks who are not really
On Tue, Dec 14, 2004 at 06:58:06PM +0100, Enrico Weigelt wrote:
* Joe Orton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Yeah, that was fixed in 1.5.10. For an autoconf 2.59-generated
configure script the only reference to grep -E is in the test to see
whether grep -E works or not, so that looks fixed to me
* Joe Orton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Yeah, that was fixed in 1.5.10. For an autoconf 2.59-generated
configure script the only reference to grep -E is in the test to see
whether grep -E works or not, so that looks fixed to me too.
well, i've tried to regenerate configure with the newest
On Tue, Dec 14, 2004 at 03:20:26AM -0600, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
Of course we could do that.
However, it's entirely against the first principal of httpd,
which is that this project builds against more old and crufty
operating systems installs than most utilities, sans 'cat' :)
Quoting Enrico Weigelt [EMAIL PROTECTED] (2004-12-14 04:50:36 GMT):
* Patrick Welche [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
snip
Is part of the problem automake avoidance? AFAIR httpd just uses
No, autoconf is bad enough, automake will make it even worse.
Dont expect apache to remain in so many
On Tue, Dec 14, 2004 at 03:58:42AM -0600, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
I would like to see ALOT of feedback to current-testers or dev
or even apache-modules of the alpha before declaring first beta.
Once beta - we should be very adverse to API changes - our module
authors will want to fix once
* Paul Querna [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
snip
You aren't. I agree auto* sucks, but there isn't a viable alternative
that works today.
Well, I've tried to aquire helpers for such a project for years,
in dozens of other projects. But the only ones who were at least
thinking about it were the
* Enrico Weigelt wrote:
* Paul Querna [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
We are the httpd server project, not the autoconf
replacement project.
With this mentality we will never get something better.
Such software doesnt simply fall from the heaven.
Sure. We get a better httpd.
nd
On Mon, Dec 13, 2004 at 09:20:41AM +0100, Enrico Weigelt wrote:
* Paul Querna [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
snip
You aren't. I agree auto* sucks, but there isn't a viable alternative
that works today.
Well, I've tried to aquire helpers for such a project for years,
in dozens of other
--On Monday, December 13, 2004 5:29 AM +0100 Enrico Weigelt
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
we don't maintain configure;
bad enough. an carefully hand-written configure would be much better.
Been there, done that with APACI. We ain't going back to a hand-written
configure.
AIUI, your problem is
On Mon, Dec 13, 2004 at 03:35:38PM -0800, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
--On Monday, December 13, 2004 5:29 AM +0100 Enrico Weigelt
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
we don't maintain configure;
bad enough. an carefully hand-written configure would be much better.
Been there, done that with APACI. We
At 08:08 AM 12/13/2004, Patrick Welche wrote:
Is part of the problem automake avoidance? AFAIR httpd just uses
autoconf and libtool. The other thing is that now that libtool
has a LT_PREREQ (VERSION) macro, one could set that and no longer
maintain the special httpd distributed version and
On Tue, Dec 14, 2004 at 09:00:58AM +, Joe Orton wrote:
Yeah, that was fixed in 1.5.10. For an autoconf 2.59-generated
configure script the only reference to grep -E is in the test to see
whether grep -E works or not, so that looks fixed to me too.
Excellent. So we've wasted all this
At 03:33 AM 12/14/2004, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
On Tue, Dec 14, 2004 at 03:20:26AM -0600, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
Seriously, we could target only latest-n-greatest, but that
goes against the grain of many participants.
I think we should be much stricter for the releases we make and
* André Malo [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
snip
With this mentality we will never get something better.
Such software doesnt simply fall from the heaven.
Sure. We get a better httpd.
Yes, of course.
Software doesn't get built from source by magic. Either people
to this completely by hand or
* Patrick Welche [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
snip
Is part of the problem automake avoidance? AFAIR httpd just uses
No, autoconf is bad enough, automake will make it even worse.
Dont expect apache to remain in so many distros if you switch
to automake and bring distributor's life ten steps nearer
* Jeff Trawick [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
snip
we don't maintain configure;
bad enough. an carefully hand-written configure would be much better.
it is autogenerated; any fixes need to be
in the input files; it looks like the portion you had to modify comes
from libtool sources, not from
Enrico Weigelt wrote:
snip
I dont count the days of autoconf-trouble anylonger - i'm counting
the days when autoconfs really works, there're just a few.
I've written down some concepts for an universal crossplatform
compiling/building toolkit, which also supports crosscompiling and
sysroot'ing as
On Tue, 7 Dec 2004 21:53:07 +0100, Enrico Weigelt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
here's a patch against httpd-2.0.49 which fixes the broken
configure script.
we don't maintain configure; it is autogenerated; any fixes need to be
in the input files; it looks like the portion you had to modify comes
26 matches
Mail list logo
