On 07/07/2014 14:48, Christopher Schultz wrote: > Mark, > > On 7/1/14, 11:44 AM, Mark Thomas wrote: >> On 01/07/2014 16:04, Mark Thomas wrote: >>> With some additional information from Mladen regrading the >>> build tools to use, I now have a working build environment for >>> the Tomcat Native connector binaries. This is documented at: >>> http://wiki.apache.org/tomcat/BuildTcNativeWin >> >> (excluding a working I64 build that I am still looking at) > > I just glanced through the current contents of BuildTcNativeWin on > the wiki, and I can still see this comment: > >>> IA64 OpenSSL build failed. Commenting out destest from >>> ms\nt.mak > worked around the issue. > > The problem is that the tests require a compatible supporting > architecture.
I don't believe that is the problem. I shouldn't need a supporting architecture to build the tests (that part that is failing), only to run them. > That is, if you cross-compile to IA64 then try to run the tests, > the tests will fail because you are running on x86_84 and IA64 is > not available. The same thing will happen if you try to build/test > on ia32: you can produce x86_64 binaries, but you will be unable to > test them. Agreed. > Therefore, it would be safest to specify in the instructions that > either x86_64 or IA64 should be used for the build -- that way, at > least one of the 64-bit architectures can be tested along with the > 32-bit one. It's also worth mentioning that a 32-bit environment > would need to comment-out *all* the 64-bit tests, and not just the > IA64 ones. I don't believe any of the tests are specifically 32-bit or 64-bit. > Thanks for continuing to work on this, Mark. I'm glad you've been > able to remove Cygwin as a requirement... looking at your initial > build instructions seemed overly complicated -- or at least had > many more requirements than strictly necessary. I'm not sure how > much of Mladen's magic environment is strictly necessary, either: I > think a lot of it could be put into scripts that ship with the > tcnative source distribution. Keep in mind that these are build instructions for a completely clean OS install so there are a number of tools lists that I would normally expect to be present on a developers machine. In terms of how much of this is necessary, experience suggests that most of it is required to avoid having to install a Visual C Runtime distribution. If you are prepared to do that (or more specifically prepared to make your users do that) then yes, this could get a lot simpler. Personally, I'm in favour of making the release manager jump through a few hoops rather than making our users jump through hoops. > I am still going to continue to work on getting all this stuff to > build using Microsoft Visual Studio Express: it should be possible > to do, and I *have* been able to get a 32-bit build working. But > these days, I think not having a 64-bit build available is not a > practical solution, of course. I'm not sure it is possible to build with Visual Studio Express without introducing a dependency on a Visual C Runtime distribution but if you can find a way around that issue that would be great. Mark --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@tomcat.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@tomcat.apache.org
