On Thu, Dec 21, 2017 at 12:06 PM, William A Rowe Jr <wr...@rowe-clan.net> wrote: > On Thu, Dec 21, 2017 at 9:19 AM, LONGO Matthieu > <matthieu.lo...@murex.com> wrote: >> Hello, >> >> I built APR 1.6.3 and APR-util 1.6.1 and noticed dependencies to files >> located in APR's repository. >> >> buildconf: l.61 >> # Remove some files, then copy them from apr source tree >> rm -f build/apr_common.m4 build/find_apr.m4 build/install.sh \ >> build/config.guess build/config.sub build/get-version.sh >> cp -p $apr_src_dir/build/apr_common.m4 $apr_src_dir/build/find_apr.m4 \ >> $apr_src_dir/build/install.sh $apr_src_dir/build/config.guess \ >> $apr_src_dir/build/config.sub $apr_src_dir/build/get-version.sh \ >> build/ >> >> buildconf: l.90 >> echo "Generating 'make' outputs ..." >> $apr_src_dir/build/gen-build.py $verbose make >> >> Why are these files not directly included in apr-utils's repository if they >> are necessary for the build ? >> >> In my opinion, if apr-utils depends on apr, I should firstly build apr as >> follow: >> ./buildconf > > That's where you became confused, or we led you astray... > > ./buildconf is not a necessary step of building apr-util from the > released source > tarball. And configuration does not entitle automake-style maintainer-mode > (this is straight autoconf), so ./buildconf will not reoccur when building on > an > unusual platform with poor AC support or without an AC toolchain. > > Yes, it is necessary to have sources from apr for the release manager to > package apr-util. That's simply not part of the source tree and not necessary > as a typical end-user activity. Proceed directly to configure when building > from the source tarballs.
[There is a footnote to this, https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51215 as proposed should resolve a host of related issues for users who wish to rebuild the apr-util config.]
