apr-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Roy T. Fielding" <field...@ebuilt.com>
Subject Re: FreeBSD and gnu m4
Date Fri, 02 Mar 2001 06:10:49 GMT
On Thu, Mar 01, 2001 at 09:40:44PM -0800, rbb@covalent.net wrote:
> We still need to APR namespace protection.  We tried to not namespace
> protect things to begin with, and Apache and APR were conflicting
> horribly.

Because the method I described was not used.

> Add to that, that we define our own macros that no other
> package should have.

That is a separate issue -- anything that is defined by an APR-specific
macro should be name-protected.   I am only talking about the standard
names that every autoconf package defines.

> We have been down the road of exposing non-namespace protected macros
> before, it didn't work then, and I don't believe it will work now.  Please
> take a look at the archive from when we first put autoconf into APR,
> and how it conflicted with Apache.

As I mentioned when I started the build blues thread, I read the archives
first.  Most of the decisions back then were made because APR had to be
integrated with a non-configure-based httpd.  I have the benefit of
hindsight and a holistic view of the build system, so it shouldn't be
too surprising that I can think of a solution that may not have been
possible back then.

The reason I bring it up right now is because every step we have taken away
from a standard autoconf setup has resulted in significant problems on
one platform or another, leading to another step away and more problems,
ad nauseum.  Some steps, like not using the standard generating mechanism
for the Makefile files, have benefits that outweigh the pain.  Others do not.


View raw message