httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Guenter Knauf <>
Subject Re: svn commit: r808062 - /httpd/mod_ftp/trunk/README-FTP
Date Thu, 27 Aug 2009 17:24:00 GMT
William A. Rowe, Jr. schrieb:
> 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...
will revise soon unless you beat me :)

>> 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
Why would anyone do this?
1) I made clear *and* documented that this is *not* supported nor gives
any benefit.
2) If anyone would do so he would most likely be on Win32 where you get
a warning and you have to agree before an existing file is overwritten.
3) If anyone would really want to combine into httpd sources then this
would certainly be a developer who is skilled enough to realize that the
root makefile is useless, and instead its required to modify httpd's
./modules/NWGNUmakefile to include the ftp subdirectory + merge the
install part of mod_ftp's makefile into the httpd root NWGNUmakefile -
though I wonder who would do this all for zero benefit?
> 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).
I have no energy to further convince you, and dont care anymore about
the naming of the root makefile; though it was crazy when two others who
built mod_ftp in the past asked me:
Q: why do we need to rename the makefile?
A: because the httpd build system expects a NWGNUmakefile.
Q: Why is it then not directly named NWGNUmakefile?
A: Because it would clash with httpd's NWGNUmakefile when you copy
everything over into httpd source tree in order to do in-tree build.
Q: But the README states that in-tree is not supported nor of any
benefit - so why should I try this at all?
A: ??? /me not knowing what to answer :)

> 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.
The NetWare build system is not optimal, and neither Brad nor I
developed it since we had no time these days - we had enough trouble
with getting familar with the new compiler, and only used the GUI with
project files; when Novell started to ship Apache 2.0 they needed to
have a commandline build process which could be easily adapted for
different build hosts and drive names, and so Novell India developed the
build system.
What I did in the past was fixing things as good as possible, but if I
would have enough time I would really write something else from the
scratch which looks more clear.
However, if I would write something new from the scratch then I would
probably consider going with OpenWatcom or gcc.

Maybe we can look into a OpenWatcom build system for httpd HEAD - it
could then build at least Win32 and NetWare targets, and probably also
OS/2 (Brian?) ...

Also would be a great thing if we could put the object files of each
directory into a which could then be included from all
platforms - this would simplify future changes a lot, and reduces


View raw message