Aaron Bannert wrote:
>
> On Thu, Jun 28, 2001 at 06:35:29PM -0700, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
> > > What if (random thoughts coming out now), instead of requiring people to
> > > build APR (since that seems the biggest source of problems), we don't simply
> > > ask them where the tarball is, and then in our configure script, we
> > > configure it, and then build it together while building the module...
> > >
> > > In that way we won't have troubles with previous APR installations/builds,
> > > we _know_ what we're going to supply to the APR configure script and we
> > > solve all those troubles?
> >
> > Yup, that's what httpd-2.0 does. Just require them to slap the apr
> > sources in srclib (or something like that).
> >
> > APR isn't standalone just yet. I was shocked when I saw that
> > mod_webapp required an install of APR. =) -- justin
No problem, httpd-2.0 installed it for me ;-)
>
> APR *will* be standalone, but since it is not yet completely stable it
> may at random times not be standalone. That may be unsatisfactory for
> j-t-c, or maybe that just means that we have to work harder to get
> APR to be standalone.
>
> Last time I built APR standalone for use with j-t-c I didn't have a
> problem with it (on Solaris 8/sparc and Linux/RH 7.1/x86). We just have
> to have docs that capture all the scenarios (which is much harder to do
> in scripts).
I am using normaly using the APR (static libraries) resulting of the httpd-2.0
installation. There are always small things to arrange but a part of changes
must be done in APR and a smaller part of them in mod_webapp.
Using APR sources like httpd-2.0 is dangerous: What will happend when mod_webapp
for Apache-2.0 will be available and that httpd-2.0 and mod_webapp use a
different APR version sources?
APRVARS problably need to be improved, but I am not sure using APR sources
instead APR installation really helps.
>
> Maybe I can post some doc updates from my experiences building that beast.
>
> -aaron
