httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Luc Pardon <>
Subject [pre-release] rpm spec file (was: Re: [pre-release] 2.0.55 *candidate* available for testing)
Date Tue, 11 Oct 2005 08:19:39 GMT

"William A. Rowe, Jr." wrote:
> <snip>
> This was a snafu in the way the rpm change was presented, not in the
> tarballs.  httpd-2.0's distribution tarball will always contain apr 0.9.
> That doesn't mean httpd-2.2 (with apr 1.x) will do the same; that's yet
> to be determined.

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

    Solution a) would be best if httpd 2.0.55 absolutely requires apr
0.9.7 and nothing else, i.e. does not work with apr 1.2.1 or not even
with 0.9.8 if/when that comes out. 

    Otherwise, solution b) would be the way to go.

    Again, I realize that all this has been discussed at length on this
list. Normally I would look at the archives but the countdown has
started and my time is limited, so it's quicker to ask. For me, that is

> Coming back to rpm's for the moment; I do *not* mean to suggest that
> this is the best solution for any specific platform or distribution
> method, be it .rpm, .depot, .pkg, .msi, or any other facility.

    Wise, very. Any suggestion in that area is likely to spark a flame
war <g>.

>  <snip>
> I'm concerned that the current .spec solution is wrong; it's very
> platform specific (platform meaning deployment mechanics, in this
> case, I'm not slamming non-unix rpm implementations).  Perhaps we
> rejigger the tree to
>    httpd/
>      package/
>        roll-release/
>        win32-msi/
>        rpm/
>        pkg/
> Thoughts?

    Not really. The current build/rpm seems fine to me, but I wouldn't
mind if it changed either. 

    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/.

> In the interim; is this a showstopper?  Do we generally do the right
> thing (e.g. without changes, can we package up using the existing
> rpm files?)  Obviously 2.0.54 was mispackaged as well, it's minimum
> apr package dependency should have been 0.9.6 apr, not 0.9.5.
> Bill

    Showstopper probably not, as long as you document that the spec file
is broken, for example:

  "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."

   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>.

   Beyond that, any fix I can offer (e.g. to build separate apr
packages) would only be tested on my systems. 

   Luc Pardon

View raw message