httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jim Jagielski <...@jaguNET.com>
Subject Re: NSPR and 2.0
Date Wed, 23 Sep 1998 12:20:59 GMT
Dean Gaudet wrote:
> 
> On Tue, 22 Sep 1998, Jim Jagielski wrote:
> 
> > well, the required changes are so ugly :) A/UX doesn't have a mmap
> > or support DLL so there's lots of conflicts. In the unix.c file,
> 
> Yeah this is why I've been advocating "HAS_FEATURE" macros for NSPR.
> Apache doesn't have to use the DLL support, neither does NSPR.  In fact I
> disabled it in my linux version for a while when I wanted to statically
> link to use gprof.  It would be better if there were a PR_HAS_DSO or other
> such macro that is defined when the underlying NSPR library supports DSO.
> 
> Similarly for mmap -- it's used for a few things that malloc() and
> read()/write() can replace without trouble.  But it's also presented as an
> NSPR interface to the app... and that should be protected with
> PR_HAS_MMAP.

Yes, this all looks like the case. Trying to "weed out" the assumptions
and then working around the code that uses these and then figuring out
whether it's needed for Apache/NSPR is involved. If these are included in
NSPR, then I wonder if that leaves it up to "us" to provide these
Apache-specific patches. I admit I haven't been following mozilla.org
all that closely, mostly because it seems pretty obvious that the
main focus is porting the browser itself, with NSPR as sort of a
support layer. Sort of needing to port all of BIND just for the BSD
emulation library :/

The nut to crack are that there most likely are systems that don't or
can't port "Mozilla" itself, but can use/port NSPR, but the 2 are so
intwined that it's more difficult than it should be, IMHO.

In any case, when we do come up with patches, do we send them directly
to mozilla.org or is there some "go-between" that is organizing the
inputs from us? ;)

> 
> (Neither are currently used by apache-nspr).
> 
> > It'll be fun thinking how autoconf fits into all this :) :)
> 
> I think there's already autoconf support in what I just merged in... isn't
> there?  I noticed lots of Makefile.ins.  I didn't look further.
> 

I saw them too, but none of the 'configure' and config.h.in type
files :/

-- 
===========================================================================
   Jim Jagielski   |||   jim@jaguNET.com   |||   http://www.jaguNET.com/
            "That's no ordinary rabbit... that's the most foul,
            cruel and bad-tempered rodent you ever laid eyes on"

Mime
View raw message