httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "William A. Rowe, Jr." <>
Subject Re: svn commit: r808062 - /httpd/mod_ftp/trunk/README-FTP
Date Thu, 27 Aug 2009 16:06:42 GMT
Guenter Knauf wrote:
> what two different copies? where are these two?

There were two flavors of the instructions for netware, one occurred
before and one after the section on rebuilding docs.

>> It is not clear ... gmake or make?  make -f NWGNUftp-makefile will or
>> will not work properly?  Netware eyeballs requested.
> GNU make, may it called gmake or make (but I think in main httpd docs we
> speak about gmake, so we should be consistent with this);

+1, and from below, it looks like the right one is retained...

> and no - '[g]make -f NWGNUftp-makefile' does NOT work due to our
> somewhat strange build system; therefore renaming to NWGNUmakefile IS
> mandatory, and brings up the Q again to rename it already in mod_ftp SVN
> as I did a while ago - but you were not fine with it because you thought
> it would break in-tree build, and I renamed back; but also pointed out
> that its NOT possible to do an in-tree build in such a simple way as
> just copying into the tree + there are no benefits to build in-tree
> because we anyway dont have the tools on Win32 (our build platform) to
> regenerate the docs properly so that the links to mod_ftp are worked in
> - or am I missing something here?

Right, but anyone combining the packages into a single source would clobber
one or more of the NWGNUmakefile's that exist in the root; which is more
than likely the first, httpd's.  So for safety's sake, I'm trying to be
consistent (and fix some win32 inconsistencies here, as well).

FWIW, if the top level makefile referred to itself as $(MAKEFILE), perhaps
this could be made to work in the future, having an arbitrary root makefile
name?  Not that it's necessarily worth investing a lot of time in.

At some point, an option to recombine top level win32+netware makefiles in
the process of running ./buildconf would be cool, and I'm going to take a
look at that, sometime.  Not likely this week/month/year, though ;)

View raw message