Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-apr-dev-archive@www.apache.org Received: (qmail 12227 invoked from network); 6 Aug 2004 12:45:23 -0000 Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (209.237.227.199) by minotaur-2.apache.org with SMTP; 6 Aug 2004 12:45:23 -0000 Received: (qmail 48692 invoked by uid 500); 6 Aug 2004 12:45:21 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-apr-dev-archive@apr.apache.org Received: (qmail 48646 invoked by uid 500); 6 Aug 2004 12:45:21 -0000 Mailing-List: contact dev-help@apr.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: Delivered-To: mailing list dev@apr.apache.org Received: (qmail 48631 invoked by uid 99); 6 Aug 2004 12:45:20 -0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=10.0 tests=FORGED_RCVD_HELO X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Message-ID: <41137D39.5040803@modperlcookbook.org> Date: Fri, 06 Aug 2004 08:44:41 -0400 From: Geoffrey Young User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.6) Gecko/20040510 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: dev@apr.apache.org Subject: APR_FIND_APR X-Enigmail-Version: 0.83.6.0 X-Enigmail-Supports: pgp-inline, pgp-mime Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Checked: Checked X-Spam-Rating: minotaur-2.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N hi all... over in mod_perl land we are trying to figure out whether to call apr-config or apr-$version-config, depending on which version of APR we are trying to compile against. from the archives it looks like APR_FIND_APR is the official way to do this, but it doesn't really help us lots since we're not a configure based install and have to rely on a bunch of system() calls from perl. I hesitate to raise the issue again, since it looks like this was a passionate subject before, but is it possible to roll up APR_FIND_APR into its own, separate utility script or something? or maybe somebody else has has a suggestion as to how we can intelligently figure out which utility function to call? not being familiar with the history here outside of the archives (which I kinda got lost in), it seems pretty strange to have embedded the version in the utility scripts rather than just adding a new --version parameter :) --Geoff