httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From r..@apache.org
Subject Re: How to build 2.0 with autoconf
Date Fri, 21 Jan 2000 13:40:09 GMT

> Why can't you just use something other than libtool? I don't see that you
> 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. We
> 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 use
> 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 makefiles
> 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, manual
> mechanism, or integrate the old mechanism into the current autoconf
> process. All that technology is still in the CVS repository... nobody has
> 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                        	rbb@ntrnet.net
2121 Stonehenge Dr. Apt #3
Raleigh, NC 27615		Ryan Bloom -- thinker, adventurer, artist,
				     writer, but mostly, friend.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Mime
View raw message