Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-httpd-apreq-dev-archive@httpd.apache.org Received: (qmail 51681 invoked by uid 500); 5 Aug 2003 21:48:38 -0000 Mailing-List: contact apreq-dev-help@httpd.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: Delivered-To: mailing list apreq-dev@httpd.apache.org Received: (qmail 51667 invoked from network); 5 Aug 2003 21:48:37 -0000 Received: from erato.logilune.com (HELO mail.logilune.com) (195.154.174.52) by daedalus.apache.org with SMTP; 5 Aug 2003 21:48:37 -0000 Received: from stason.org (localhost.logilune.com [127.0.0.1]) by mail.logilune.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8D02D78D14; Tue, 5 Aug 2003 23:48:42 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <3F302597.5040109@stason.org> Date: Tue, 05 Aug 2003 14:45:59 -0700 From: Stas Bekman Organization: Hope, Humanized User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.3.1) Gecko/20030428 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Randy Kobes Cc: Joe Schaefer , apreq-dev@httpd.apache.org Subject: Re: simple apache 2 module using libapreq and mod_apreq References: <20030731030821.1760.qmail@web42004.mail.yahoo.com> <3F2F4CAC.1070701@stason.org> <3F3002C6.5020002@stason.org> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Rating: daedalus.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N Randy Kobes wrote: > On Tue, 5 Aug 2003, Stas Bekman wrote: > > >>Randy Kobes wrote: >> >>>I'm away until next week, so can't test this out, but >>>would the MakeMaker attribute FIRST_MAKEFILE be of any >>>help here? That is, after generating the top-level >>>Makefile, have Makefile.PL rename it to something >>>else, and then use this name as a value to FIRST_MAKEFILE >>>within WriteMakefile(). >> >>Won't that intervene with the non-perl build, for users which aren't >>interested in the perl glue. I suppose that if they don't run 'perl >>Makefile.PL' it makes no difference to them. >> >> So if we say: >> >> FIRST_MAKEFILE => Makefile.mod_perl >> >>the top-level Makefile could include: >> >>dist : >> make -f Makefile.mod_perl dist >> >>but it's probably too messy to have two Makefiles. Is there a way we can >>generate Makefile normally via MakeMaker and then somehow integrate the >>autoconf's stuff in? Or the other way around? > > > You're right that it will become messy to have two Makefiles ... > As far as trying to integrate things, perhaps one could > let autoconf generate a Makefile, and then, within Makefile.PL, > rename it to Makefile.auto, or something, and then in Makefile.PL > add in something to > include Makefile.auto > in MakeMaker's generated Makefile? I guess this would also > involve changing the default targets so as to include those > of Makefile.auto. And since it's done within Makefile.PL, > it would only affect those users wishing to use the perl glue. I don't think this will quite work as most variables will get duplicated. we could probably start with just providing a dist target for the top level Makefile that will call the perl's generated Makefile. > Another possibility, which though would add a perl dependency, > is to use Module::Build rather than MakeMaker, and then add > in the autoconf Makefile targets into Module::Build. That's not an option untill we get mp2 support M::B. Currently one has to use ModPerl::MM instead of ExtUtils::MakeMaker to get things right. __________________________________________________________________ Stas Bekman JAm_pH ------> Just Another mod_perl Hacker http://stason.org/ mod_perl Guide ---> http://perl.apache.org mailto:stas@stason.org http://use.perl.org http://apacheweek.com http://modperlbook.org http://apache.org http://ticketmaster.com