Mailing-List: contact dev-help@apr.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: domain of trawick@gmail.com designates
 209.85.214.50 as permitted sender)
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws;
        d=gmail.com; s=gamma;
        h=mime-version:date:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type
         :content-transfer-encoding;
        b=CKncuQsM7tNieKZa/0R4F6KlUWBbEjLI5nYDTIf/XIAhtvV81Z6zM45NFPiokZLvsY
         0bAcSCm9OIWo8vq3ksJXIHsPWzX+Ukn/fxW1si3trlCOCKzZ7s3ExHYneAaWBh/QR5s3
         9uhNNa8F9L0F7QIt8k/Uq/RsC7Ho5WQoEJNqU=
MIME-Version: 1.0
Date: Fri, 8 Apr 2011 11:45:31 -0400
Message-ID: <BANLkTim=39fFVM2W9VF5bszF1FTt3NSGJQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: process.h
From: Jeff Trawick <trawick@gmail.com>
To: dev@apr.apache.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Fri, Apr 8, 2011 at 11:29 AM, William A. Rowe Jr.
<wrowe@rowe-clan.net> wrote:
> On 4/8/2011 9:07 AM, Guenter Knauf wrote:
>> Am 08.04.2011 08:02, schrieb William A. Rowe Jr.:
>>> Jeff, I've lost your thread, probably because it's half at httpd.
>>>
>>> Just so you know, I did get to spend my hours yesterday and today on 20=
08R2
>>> with Visual Studio 2010 - mostly on the tasks of rebuilding a VM to whi=
ch
>>> I had lost the admin password (damn 'password constraints').
>>>
>>> I would like to spend some time tomorrow and Saturday morning wrapping =
up
>>> all our work, I have Steve's work ready to commit and will at least ens=
ure
>>> Bert's suggestions are adopted, if not a wholesale fix to //unc/vol iss=
ues.
>>>
>>> Guenter, you have also make a ton of adjustments - are your changes rea=
dy
>>> to fly?
>> Regarding netware:
>> yes sir - all builds nicely, and I can now compile NetWare targets on Li=
nux for all
>> APR/APU and httpd HEAD/2.2.x versions.
>>
>> Regarding windows:
>> I would like to cleanup some stuff in apr:
>> http://people.apache.org/~fuankg/diffs/apr_cleanup.diff
>> it makes no sense to me that we duplicate HAVE_* in arch/apr_private.h f=
or which we have
>> already APR_HAVE_* in apr.h[w] ...
>
> AIUI, Autoconf duplicates these, no? =A0If not, I generally agree, howeve=
r
> you didn't look sideways with this proposal, for example,
> strings/apr_strings.c:#ifdef HAVE_STDLIB_H just to name one example.
>
> And I also wouldn't agree with including process.h to every consumer of a=
pr,
> adding new system headers to apr.h needs strong justification. =A0Adding =
this
> under the arch/private generic header would be fine, compilers are fast e=
nough
> these days that it shouldn't be a colossal hit on build time.

process.h has a cute history

1.4.x:

APR_HAVE defined in apr.hw/apr.h.in; the include is performed in
apr.hw if defined

so apr.h.in needs to add the include if defined for same app
experience with the two build systems

trunk:

you removed the APR_HAVE_ and include from apr.hw; G=FCnther added the
APR_HAVE back to apr.h.in, so they're out of sync and need to be fixed

fine with me not to include it everywhere, but the APR_HAVE has been
useful (I think httpd uses that)

APR_WANT_GETPID for apr_want.h is the more appropriate interface for
APR 2, but that still needs a visible APR_HAVE_PROCESS_H