httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Steffen" <i...@apachelounge.com>
Subject Re: will anyone build httpd/apr with cmake on Windows?
Date Wed, 04 Sep 2013 13:41:48 GMT
Tom,

I looked to your script you handed over to Jeff, very complete. Not tried 
yet, because I am familiar/new to svn and looking for a download location of 
the latest trunk tarball.

That is the way to go. Not using, at least for me, "old-fashioned" make 
files, and able to make good use off all the nice/handy tools in Visual 
Studio. This gives our audience the ability to use Visual Studio where it is 
meant for, it has for distributors and developers  quite a few good tools 
and it is easy to set config (options) and editing the source files. It 
looks for  me not that difficult for a Bot to use this direction instead the 
make file direction, which I hope the ASF is doing so.

I noticed that zlib, libxml2 and others who are using cmake,  also include 
in their source the VC9|VC10|Vc11 vcxproj files (no dsp), there must be 
reason they do that. So maybe can also ASF skip the whole VC6 thingy.



-----Original Message----- 
From: Tom Donovan
Sent: Tuesday, 3 September, 2013 22:41
To: dev@httpd.apache.org
Subject: Re: will anyone build httpd/apr with cmake on Windows?

On 09/03/2013 05:06 AM, Steffen wrote:
>> On 8/30/2013 5:25 AM, Jeff Trawick wrote:
>>
>> Please let me know if you
>>
>> * are waiting for some certain feature (other than near perfection) 
>> before
>> you use it
>
>
> After some days puzzling, I realize now that it looks like you want to
> accomplish an ASF Buildbot for Windows, like the buildbot that currently
> builds on multiple *nix OSs, can be very useful for the ASF.  If you would
> have made that clear in the beginning, I might not of spoke much, that may
> have been said earlier and I missed it.
>
> I like to see on top of that  a more user/admin friendly way, which is a
> more in line with the current system and should more easy to
> migrate/understand for them and should not so complex for a general
> user/admin.
>
> I was thinking:
>
> Dependencies still in httpd/srclib (I understood that Tom D advises this)
> and build manually, like now,  pcre, libxml2, openssl, zlib, lua etc.
>
> And then a command line like:
>
> CMAKE   -G "NMake Makefiles" \ -DBUILDTYPE=Rel|Debug|..| \
> -DINSTDIR=Path \
> -DSOLUTION=|Buildbin|Buildall|Installbin| \
> -DDBLIST=|..|..|
>
> note: Plus the current options:  PORT  SSLPORT  DOMAINNAME  SERVERNAME
> SERVERNAME  (not defined use defaults)
>
> And then to build:
>
>> NMAKE
>
>
> Steffen
>
>
> ps.
> Still no able to build with your current cmake files, errors that
> apr/include is not correct. Asked Tom D for help.
>
>
Steffen,

I think you have shown us the underlying misunderstanding here.  I guess 
what you expected (and what
I started building last spring) was a CMake build system that did, at a 
minimum, this:

* after building the prerequisite libraries,
   generate a single MSVC solution file for either vc9, vc10, or vc11
   (and soon vc12)

* this solution would build httpd & apr in a single pass in MS Visual Studio
   (and for versions 2.4 and earlier, also build apr-util and apr-iconv)

* this solution would have an install project which:
   * creates a directory and installs a complete working httpd system into 
it
   * can safely be re-installed to the same location (doesn't clobber .conf 
files, etc.)
   * does not install any files which do not belong in an httpd system
     (i.e. no header or lib files from prerequisites, etc.)

I was pleased that Makefiles are a free byproduct of using CMake because, 
like Jeff, I almost always
use automated builds and Makefiles whenever I can.  I use the GUI for 
profiling and debugging.  I
did not, however, consider myself to be the "target audience" for this CMake 
effort.

I think that Jeff has a different goal altogether.   Since I never followed 
up on my CMake efforts,
and Jeff took the lead here - this project will just need to go with his 
decisions, rather than my
assumptions and yours.   Like you, I'm disappointed;  but those who do the 
actual work (i.e. Jeff)
get to make the actual decisions (i.e. BuildBot vs. users' expectations).

Jeff - I haven't got your CMake build to work yet; and I confess that once I 
realized we had such a
different idea of the end result, my enthusiasm has waned.  Nevertheless, 
I'll make some time to
continue to try - probably next weekend - and let you know how I fare with 
it.

Regards,
-tom-


Mime
View raw message