httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "David Reid" <>
Subject Re: How to build 2.0 with autoconf
Date Fri, 21 Jan 2000 13:50:53 GMT
I have to say that I agree with Ryan on this.  Having some platforms using
one mechanism and other using something "home-grown" is a recipe for
disaster.  Windows is a different case and we should essentially ignore it.

Autoconf seems to work OK, it just needs some fiddling to get it working as
it needs to for other non-unix platforms, and I suspect the same will be
true of some of the more exotic unix platforms out there.

Libtool?  If it's going to produce more problems than it solves then lets
find something else.  If a home grown solution is going to work then lets do

As much as I hate to bring up decisions (not a strong point within the group
:-)) we probably need to make one before too long.  Maintaining 2
configuration methods will slow down other work that should be done so we
can move onto a beta.  Also people tend to get on with solving the problems
quicker when they have no choice than when they don't.

----- Original Message -----
From: <>
To: <>
Sent: Friday, January 21, 2000 1:40 PM
Subject: Re: How to build 2.0 with autoconf

> > Why can't you just use something other than libtool? I don't see that
> > need to throw the baby out with the bathwater.
> Because the current configuration stuff is built around libtools
> interface.  Our old mechanism doesn't work the same way libtool does to
> the best of my knowledge.  We either need to use libtool on all platforms,
> or use the old mechanism on all platforms.
> > We already have the technology for building libraries on all platforms.
> > just wanted to stop maintaining it, in favor or leveraging libtool. If
> > libtool does not work, then just use the old mechanism. At least we gain
> > some leverage for platforms X and Y, despite not supporting Z.
> I think this is a bad idea.  I would rather continue to use our own
> machanism for building libraries on different platforms than use libtool
> on some platforms and support our own machanism on others.
> > Apache 1.3 for Win32 never used APACI, so why is it a bad thing to not
> > autoconf today? That is faulty logic. Heck... did Win32 even use
> > Configuration. Hrm... looking at the repository, it doesn't seem so.
> > Makefile_win32.txt specifically builds a number of modules using
> > down in src/os/win32/.
> >
> > In other words: Apache 1.3 for Win32 had *NO* automated configuration
> > tool. It was all done manually.
> I didn't think we were ever talking about Windows.  Windows is creating
> it's own Header and Makefiles for Apache 2.0, because there is no autoconf
> for Windows.  This was known when we started the work, and we decided that
> was okay because 1.3 had the same limitation.  However, OS/2 and BeOS have
> used the APACI and Configure scripts since they were ported.  This makes
> it look like we are taking a step backwards on those platforms.  One of
> the biggest problems with the 2.0 work is that it hasn't been tested on
> many platforms.  How many other platforms don't have an up-to-date libtool
> and automake?  Are we going to end up with one build process for Unix and
> a separate process for every other platform?  I would rather just use
> autoconf and skip libtool.
> I am not advocating getting rid of libtool today.  I am suggesting that we
> look seriously at how many platforms will need a work around for libtool.
> If it is just Unix platforms that can use libtool, then we need to
> seriously re-consider getting rid of libtool and just using our own
> mechanism.  I think we should keep autoconf.  It solves mroe problems than
> it causes, and when used properly it can make things easier.
> > These complaints about how we should toss autoconf simply because it
> > doesn't work on My Pet Platform are a bit faulty. Just use the old,
> > mechanism, or integrate the old mechanism into the current autoconf
> > process. All that technology is still in the CVS repository... nobody
> > deleted it yet.
> I hate to bring this up, but this sounds an awful lot like the #if versus
> #ifdef argument.  Except that you were on the other side of the argument
> with that one.  For people who program on multiple paltforms (ME!), it
> will be a real PITA if I have to remember which platform uses libtool and
> which uses our own mechanism.  I think we need to find one solution that
> works everywhere (or as close to it as possible) and stick with it.
> Ryan
> Come to the first official Apache Software Foundation
> Conference!!!   <http://ApacheCon.Com/>
> Ryan Bloom              
> 2121 Stonehenge Dr. Apt #3
> Raleigh, NC 27615 Ryan Bloom -- thinker, adventurer, artist,
>      writer, but mostly, friend.
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------

View raw message