As I already wrote, the most important issue is not having the same
steps for building, but to have the same tree for both Windows and
UNIX. It is easy to do, and has a lot of benefits.
In your tree, you achieved this purpose, and I think it is possible
to add support for UNIX, so build/installat
> >
> > Just run a single "nmake" in Apache_1.3.x\src and then "nmake
> > install" and that`s it.
>
> Although it is a very positive progress, it is not what I meant. I
> want a shared distribution for all the platforms, which can be built
> simply (1-2 steps rather than dozens of step
Daniel S. Reichenbach wrote:
> The next release will have a new build scheme, which could be
> near to what Eli might want. The build can be done the Unix way.
> Just run a single "nmake" in Apache_1.3.x\src and then "nmake
> install" and that`s it.
Although it is a very positive progres
> One last word to the OpenSA people: I believe that it will not be an
> impossible job to make OpenSA portable to UNIX. Windows was always
> harder for such stuff (Apache, mod_ssl, PHP, OpenSSL, etc.) to build
> and install, but UNIX is not for newbies too. Maybe I can help.
Yep, you`re right. Ac
Daniel S. Reichenbach wrote:
> Sorry me. Should have read to the end. You said that SSL_INC and
> SSL_LIB could be defined as env vars under Win32. I would vote +1 for
> it. The same is used in PHP4 for Cygwin32 integration in the makefiles.
and [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> I like the idea that t
Eli Marmor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Under NT you can go to http://www.opensa.org/ and get Apache, mod_ssl,
> > OpenSSL and PHP4 with a comfortable installation for about 3MB.
> > Five to ten minutes download plus two minutes installation and that`s
> > it. That should be ok ?!
>
> I know
> I know OpenSA, and I'm even subscribed to its mailing list. I only
> thought that its good idea, the integration, may help Apache and
> mod_ssl too. Especially when you have one source tree for UNIX and
> Windows (which is very simple, as I already tried and explained).
Sorry me. Should have rea
> Under NT you can go to http://www.opensa.org/ and get Apache, mod_ssl,
> OpenSSL and PHP4 with a comfortable installation for about 3MB.
> Five to ten minutes download plus two minutes installation and that`s
> it. That should be ok ?!
I know OpenSA, and I'm even subscribed to its mailing list.
> In any case, last time I installed mod_ssl on an NT, I was forced to
> download and install zillion of other things: Apache (of course...),
> OpenSSL, perl (to run configure.bat), patch.exe (which is used by
> configure.bat), etc., etc. I would be grateful if I could download a
> big (if you ins
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> > My final vision is to have an integrated source tree, including sub
> > trees for Apache (including EAPI patches), PHP4, JServ (Jakarta?),
> > Perl, OpenSSL, mod_perl, etc., with one simple command (like the
> > "src/helpers/binbuild.sh"), that will build everything
> My final vision is to have an integrated source tree, including sub
> trees for Apache (including EAPI patches), PHP4, JServ (Jakarta?),
> Perl, OpenSSL, mod_perl, etc., with one simple command (like the
> "src/helpers/binbuild.sh"), that will build everything, without an
> installation process
I just re-read Cliff's message, and learned that his meaning was not
what I thought before, after a (too) quick reading of it. So my
response is not too much relevant.
Sorry,
--
Eli Marmor
__
Apache Interface to OpenSSL (mod_ssl
After a long investigation, I found only one real conflict between
UNIX and Windows: src/modules/ssl/Makefile. The Windows version is
copied from Makefile.win32 during the mod_ssl patching procedure,
while the UNIX one is generated automatically during the make of
Apache. To avoid cases in which W
The answer is very simple. All the modules you mentioned (e.g. PHP)
are separate modules. They can (and should) be built out of the
tree of Apache. Even if you choose to build them in the source tree
of Apache, you should do it at least in the separate directory
"src/modules/extra", or by putting
>>> Eli Marmor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 12/11/99 06:33PM >>>
>Providing mod_ssl as a patched Apache source tree, instead of a
>separate patch.
On the other hand, for current users of mod_ssl it'd be nice to just
have a patch against the previous version of mod_ssl's *already patched
source tree*. Fo
Following to my previous message, I want to present a restructuring
of mod_ssl, which was discussed in the past, but was rejected, due
to reasons which are not relevant anymore:
Providing mod_ssl as a patched Apache source tree, instead of a
separate patch.
First of all, let me detail the proble
I posted a proposal in the past about unifying the patch scripts of
UNIX and Windows. Ralf answered me that it would require users to
install Perl on their UNIXes. I still think that even if there are
two different scripts, they must do the same things (90% of what
they do is already the same), so
On Sun, Nov 14, 1999, Eli Marmor wrote:
> It's off-topic, but was raised when I investigated how to unite the
> patch scripts of UNIX and Windows (of mod_ssl) into one script
> (Ralph - does it interest you? The current status looks anomal for
> me...).
Hmmm... I guess your merge means that the
18 matches
Mail list logo
