apr-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "William A. Rowe, Jr." <wr...@rowe-clan.net>
Subject Re: APR nmake makefiles
Date Tue, 28 Jun 2005 17:58:58 GMT
At 12:27 PM 6/28/2005, Mladen Turk wrote:
>William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
>
>>  Question; do we want to adopt (finish adopting) svn's build
>>system coded in python?
>
>Are you guys saying that I would need a python to even
>consider to build a APR from the cvs/svn?

This is true *today* for everyone except Win32 (and netware?)

>IMHO that would be a huge step backward.

It's bit me.  I'm unlikely to be contributing much on HP/UX or
AIX for the foreseeable future until I reengineer my entire
build environment.  BSD is not much better, I can't even do
simple scratch tests on the people.apache.org box.

Yes we are *strictly* talking about running autoconf; once the
autoconf is done, ./configure shouldn't require Python (right?)
But alot of APR users want to live on the bleeding edge, and
we want to encourage folks to make improvements/submit them
back, which implies they live and breathe the svn trunk.

>First of all, the number of files in the APR will unlikely
>go sky-high, so what's wrong with the current build?
>Seems to me that we are over-engineering here.

<nods>

I am trying to discover what the python solution actually solves.
Earlier versions all worked quite lovely imho, although already
quite deep in AC/libtool version dependencies.

We seem to be taking large steps backwards - we are trying to
craft the most portable implementation layer that is efficient
on a wide range of platforms, yet the label gnu/apr is starting
to swim in my head :)

I can't decide which is more efficient; pull us further in this
direction by bringing in the svn solution for win32 (which would
require python to ./configure, IIUC), or look to our OpenSSL
sister group for their perl build system with much fewer 
dependencies and more friendly build tool licenses.

Bill



Mime
View raw message