httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Thom May <t...@planetarytramp.net>
Subject Re: Refactoring apxs, WAS: RE: using installed apxs when apr and apache are installed in different directories
Date Wed, 21 May 2003 16:58:35 GMT
* William A. Rowe, Jr. (wrowe@rowe-clan.net) wrote :
> At 01:36 PM 3/27/2003, Sander Striker wrote:
> >> From: Thom May [mailto:thom@planetarytramp.net]
> >> 
> >> Ok, so sander and I were just discussing the creation of an httpd-config
> >> script, analogous to apr-config etc, which apxs or module developers could
> >> just call at need. 
> >> Apxs could then shed a lot of code and become a program specifically to
> >> build modules, rather than also having to be used to query build variables
> >> and the myriad of other stuff it currently does.
> >
> >Just chiming in... Currently we have a dependency on perl to figure out
> >stuff like include dirs etc, which is a bit silly.  httpd-config could be
> >done as a shell script, removing that dependency.
> 
> WHOH!  Go ahead, f* us win32 users ;-)
> 
> Actually, Thom's point actually makes win32 much *easier* to set up to
> support APXs on win32... if we can only get rid of the libtool dependency ;-)
> In any case, I'm thinking if you want to create a parallel .sh script and we
> can all agree to keep the .sh and .pl flavors of apxs in working order, this
> could be a good thing for everyone :-)
> 
OK, i just reread this thread in the light of what I just commited to
httpd-2.0/STATUS; and this comment still somewhat confuses me :-)

Is the first bit meaning:
if you try and have an httpd-config, you'll break apxs on Win32? but this
makes no sense to me, cos surely ap{r,u}-config will have already broken
apxs for you?
Does apxs actually make sense on Win32 anyway? As Will points out, it's very
dependent on libtool. 
My suggestion for httpd-config and the refactoring of apxs would reduce apxs 
to as minimal as possible a wrapper for the *-config scripts; really it
would only be there for backwards compatibility and to allow the easy
production of Makefiles for modules.
Cheers,
-T, hoping for the cluebat of enlightenment to strike

Mime
View raw message