>Ok. ( plus ant ) of course ;)
>But I'm not sure I understand why do we need automake - if autoconf >can generate only the build.properties file ( and probably a .h ). I think automake was used to generate the stuff for static build but I removed now. >The makefile and ant should read the build.properties to get settings >to use ( and that will also allow manual config ). Do you agree having build.properties generated by autoconf ? >I would like more info on what is autoconf detecting - and make sure >we don't duplicate stuff that was detected by apache ( and end up with >different settings for apache and jk ). In general, I would like the >2 'styles' work togheter - and the user is able to specify >it's explicit >preferences in build.properties-style, and autoconf will just >guess the >rest. I'll commit today the new autoconf stuff, remove automake and you could see that the autoconf is really simple (apxs/apr src/apr inc,lib) >It is very common to build the .so on a system and deploy it on another >system ( the production server is not a build machine in most cases ), >and I want to be sure the user can contol explicitely what options are >used. For sure, as an rpm packager it's one of my primary concern -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
