httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Graham Leggett" <>
Subject Re: [pre-release] rpm spec file (was: Re: [pre-release] 2.0.55 *candidate* available for testing)
Date Tue, 11 Oct 2005 09:03:54 GMT
Luc Pardon said:

>     In that case the 2.0 httpd.spec files should either a) not require
> pre-installed apr packages and build apr as part of the httpd rpm,

A definite -1 on this. If this were so, httpd could not coexist cleanly
with other packages that depended on APR.

> or b)
> build the bundled apr stuff into separate rpm packages itself.

APR is already available as an RPM, both for the 0.9 and 1.x trees, and
0.9 and 1.x can be installed simultaneously.

See the binaries/rpm directory in the download section for APR.

>     I'm only really familiar with rpm-ing on RedHat platforms, but AFAIK
> the rpm specs differ in details, so you'd probably have to populate the
> rpm subdir with working spec files for various platforms (collected
> after the fact <g>). Or add platform-specific subdirs under rpm/.

Different spec files for different platforms should be avoided as much as
possible. Each distro will release an httpd version + their custom patches
for the purposes of that distro anyway, Apache isn't a distro, so can
release a clean httpd as is without any patches.

>   "The httpd.spec file, as included in the tarball, requires apr and
> apr-util and the corresponding devel packages to be installed as
> separate rpm's. Although the APR source code is present in the httpd
> tarball, there are currently no APR spec files. You can't build the APR
> rpm's from the httpd.spec file either. In other words, if you want to
> build httpd from the included spec file, you'll first have to go and
> find the APR rpm's in the usual places and install them."

There are APR spec files in the APR and APR-util archives.

They are removed from the apr tree in the httpd build, as rpm gets
confused is there is more than one spec file in a tarball (in other words,
rpmbuild -tb is not possible otherwise).

>    Most people building rpm's themselves (as opposed to installing
> pre-built binary rpm's) would IMO be able to cope with that. In fact,
> I'd expect them to have pre-existing spec files anyway.
>    Therefore, another solution would be to lift httpd.spec out of the
> 2.0.55 tarball altogether (but that's frozen, right?).
>    If you leave it in, changing the dependencies to properly require
> 0.9.7 (or newer?) is a trivial change to build/rpm/ So
> trivial in fact that I'm willing to provide a patch <g>.

Please do :)

There is one fix I need to make to the file as released
concerning the xml doc files. The spec file tries to remove the xml files,
however the build was changed to remove them.


View raw message