httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Steffen <>
Subject Re: ********* Re: will anyone build httpd/apr with cmake on Windows?
Date Wed, 04 Sep 2013 12:49:10 GMT

 >Jeff wrote:
 >...of the sheer practicality of more individuals being...

I cannot figure what that says.

Of Topic:

 There are more around, like me,  who have a very difficult time on 
this list to understand the here wide used ("American") English. Not a 
really essential problem, but I have always the feeling that I miss 
some. An other example is your ".. beating ..." in a response to 
Guenter. I interpreted that first complete wrong, an other US member 
has explained to me the saying. Google translate said "het nemen van 
een pak slaag" but that make no sense in my language.

On Wednesday 04/09/2013 at 11:57, Jeff Trawick  wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 3, 2013 at 8:35 PM, Ben Reser <> wrote:
>> On 9/1/13 4:50 AM, Jeff Trawick wrote:
>> > *Doesn't it take more than one level of Visual Studio to get it into 
>> something
>>> that the most recent versions will use?
>> I don't think going through more than one version of Visual Studio 
>> helps, at
>> least not if you're trying to build with Visual Studio 2012.
>> Converting with Visual Studio 2010 can't be done from the command 
>> line, it has
>> to be done in the GUI.  Visual Studio 2012 can convert everything from 
>> the
>> command line.  I can't say that I've done anything older than that 
>> though I
>> know I've had a working 2008 configuration at one point but I never 
>> scripted it
>> so I don't remember the steps.
>> The major problems I've seen after conversion are shared intermediary 
>> build
>> directories, manifest files, and TargetName.  Take a look at the 
>> build_httpd
>> subroutine in this script for details of the hoops that have to be 
>> jumped through:
> too bad about all the httpd/apr build hacks, but still a nice example 
> of a high function workflow that can be implemented on top of general 
> build capabilities
> I don't think there's much appreciation yet of the sheer practicality 
> of more individuals being able to implement a workflow that makes 
> sense for them when the basic build just works and little effort is 
> spent hacking it for one set of build tools or another.  (That's not 
> to say that there shouldn't be some typical workflow implemented in a 
> makefile/script shipped with httpd.)
>> All of these basically come down to Visual Studio behaving differently 
>> than in
>> previous versions.  The problem with the existing build system is that 
>> there's
>> no way to correctly fix most of this.  Anyone trying basically has to 
>> have all
>> the tool chains all the way up from VC6 to test with.
>> For all practical purposes it is impossible to build httpd on modern 
>> tool
>> chains unless you spend a lot of time googling and looking for help 
>> posted on
>> various forums.  Some of these issues may be something that Windows 
>> developers
>> are familiar with and just know how to fix off hand, but in my 
>> experiece I
>> spent a ton of time trying to figure all of this out.
>> So in my opinion the real failing of the existing system is that the 
>> same work
>> is being done over and over and over again.  Nobody can show up and 
>> say "Ohh
>> VC2012 breaks due to this change, here's the patch" and then have the 
>> patch
>> applied to the build system so that nobody else has to deal with that 
>> problem
>> again.
>> The benefit of CMake is that even more of that work can be done 
>> upstream by
>> CMake and we don't necessarily even have to deal with all of it.  
>> There will
>> always be some, but at least your conversion support is now being 
>> supported by
>> someone that actually cares about it (no sorry Microsoft's support for
>> conversion doesn't count).
>> The cost of course is paid by the people who have already jumped 
>> through the
>> hoops and expended the energy to figure out how to build with the 
>> current
>> system.  These people now have to figure out how to build with CMake 
>> which is
>> an extra step for them.
>> I suspect when all is said and done though that everyone will end up 
>> better off
>> though.
> --
> Born in Roswell... married an alien...

  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, Quoted Printable, 0 bytes)
View raw message