Mailing-List: contact new-httpd-help@apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: new-httpd@apache.org
Date: Mon, 3 Apr 2000 19:56:06 -0700 (PDT)
From: Greg Stein <gstein@lyra.org>
To: new-httpd@apache.org
Subject: Re: Massive changes to Win32 generated MAK files
In-Reply-To: <008f01bf9e44$45860900$6fa0e320@apache>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.10.10004031951010.19464-100000@nebula.lyra.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII

On Tue, 4 Apr 2000, Bill Stoddard wrote:
>...
> > Does anyone still object to William's suggestion about the removal of the
> > MAK files from CVS, and the modification of the Makefile.win to use the
> > command-line-only mode of msdev.exe and the DSP files to build Apache on
> > Windows instead of using nmake.exe, and the generated MAK files?
> >
> yes, I had this thought too when I saw how ridiculous the makefile diffs
> were.
> 
> I seem to recall some bugs in the VC++ V5.0 msdev that could cause us
> problems. Can't recall the details though. Assuming there are no showstopper
> bugs, I am +1 on eliminating the Win32 project makefiles and updating
> Makefile.win with direct calls to msdev.

This does imply that Apache can be built only with VC and DevStudio. In
other words, is it a requirement to build it with, say, Borland products?

Personally, I would just punt on support for using non-MSFT products to
build the thing. Python does this and there hasn't been any real flak
about it, at all.

Taking somebody's suggestion (who was that?), it would be reasonable to
paritition the mechanisms for building:

src/build/vc/*      (*.dsp)
src/build/borland/* (whatever)
src/build/posix/*   (support for autoconf, make, etc)

When somebody comes along with a new platform-specific build mechanism, a
new build subdir gets created.

Blue sky, of course. +1 on punting .mak files and deferring the build/
crap until somebody truly needs it.

Cheers,
-g

-- 
Greg Stein, http://www.lyra.org/