httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Greg Stein <>
Subject Re: architecture-specific directories
Date Tue, 14 Nov 2000 20:41:44 GMT
On Tue, Nov 14, 2000 at 12:20:48PM -0800, wrote:
> > Let's stop and remember that *users* do not need dependencies. If they
> > unpack the distribution, they are simply going to compile everything.
> > Dependencies in the makefiles will not help them whatsoever.
> > 
> > Given that dependencies are only for *us*, then let's solve the problem for
> > us. Specifically, this means that when *we* generate the dependencies, we'll
> > be doing it on the appropriate platform. And if we assume the dependencies
> > won't get checked in, then everything should be fine.
> > 
> > That gives us proper dependencies and keeps the platform stuff out of the .c
> > files.
> > 
> > [ I think this simply means that we generate the depencencies into
> >   "Makefile" rather than "" ]
> Small problem with that.  As Jeff said, he can't generate dependancies on
> OS/390,

Then we would need a different way to generate dependencies. You know... we
*do* have mkdep.perl located in apache-2.0/src/build/. No reason we can't
use it for APR.

> and I'm not sure David can on BeOS.  Plus, I find it incredibly
> useful to have the dependancies in the Makefiles from the start, and I
> never get the right dependancies in Apache 2.0.  Whenever I change MPMs,
> my dependancies break in 2.0, so doing it on the fly is a bit worrisome to
> me.

We can make the dependencies optional, like Apache, or we can automatically
create them in the apr/buildconf script. The latter would satisfy your
needs, and mkdep.perl would satisfy Jeff's.

[ hmm. looking a bit more, I see that Apache commented that out and uses gcc
  also. doesn't seem to be much harder to fix mkdep.perl properly...
  certainly easier than the alternatives we're discussin ]


Greg Stein,

View raw message