Received: by taz.hyperreal.com (8.6.12/8.6.5) id PAA28744; Tue, 5 Dec 1995 15:49:21 -0800 Received: from priscilla.ultima.org by taz.hyperreal.com (8.6.12/8.6.5) with ESMTP id PAA28729; Tue, 5 Dec 1995 15:49:17 -0800 Received: (from brycer@localhost) by priscilla.ultima.org (8.6.12/8.6.9) id PAA11997 for new-httpd@hyperreal.com; Tue, 5 Dec 1995 15:51:07 -0800 From: Bryce Ryan Message-Id: <199512052351.PAA11997@priscilla.ultima.org> Subject: Re: Honest... To: new-httpd@hyperreal.com Date: Tue, 5 Dec 1995 15:51:06 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <199512060002.TAA09514@luers.qosina.com> from "Aram W. Mirzadeh" at Dec 5, 95 07:02:08 pm X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Length: 1920 Sender: owner-new-httpd@apache.org Precedence: bulk Reply-To: new-httpd@apache.org My mailer says that Aram W. Mirzadeh said: > >Friend tries to compile Apache 1.0.0 on a weirded out Linux box, gets > >the following line in error: > >/usr/include/endian.h:37: warning: `LITTLE_ENDIAN' redefined > > :-) there is a ton of those in linux... your friends needs to upgrade his/her > include-headers.... but to upgrade that you also need to upgrade the > kernel, gcc, and libraries all to ELF.. <-- Remeber this show? (ALF) > yes, indeed, linux does have a sense of humor. while it may be the "proper" thing to upgrade nearly one's entire system to a more recent release to get the headers, such is not always practical. i run a production (not personal) machine which can't be upgraded willy-nilly. also, 1.2.8 is a perfectly reasonable release for most purposes, and one should't have to upgrade everything just to compile a web server. too, there's lots of linux CD's in the pipeline with 1.2.8...and those won't go away anytime soon. in my experience, this warning is just that: a warning, and seems to have no effect whatsoever on the ability to compile, link, and run apache on "old" headers in linux. the warning in question goes on to state that the "redefinition" is actually "in the same place", i.e. from the same include file, so it's most likely a complete non-issue as far as funtionality goes. as for the cosmetics, well, it's ugly. i'd volunteer to fix these things for my box, but i've got enough on my plate at the moment. i'll stick it on my stack (toward the top) of "wouldn't it be nice" since i've got the goofy old version of the sources. as far as i can tell, apache, warnings and all, kicks tail from here to tomorrow, both in absolute responsiveness and functionality. -- === Bryce Ryan ========= AMBIANCE ======== brycer@ultima.org === === Internet Services, Education and ToasterNet Construction === === Web Weather at http://priscilla.ultima.org/stats.html ===