Re: Whopsie on Darwin/Mac OS X 10.2.1... :-(
"jean-frederic clere" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I have had to fight a little to get httpd-2.0.43 compiled and running on moof. > > And I am looking for a JDK1.3 for it. > > Any hints? /System/Library/Frameworks/JavaVM.framework/Home or /Library/Java/Home
Re: Whopsie on Darwin/Mac OS X 10.2.1... :-(
Pier Fumagalli wrote: > On 7/10/02 21:45, "William A. Rowe, Jr." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >>At 03:27 PM 10/7/2002, Sander Temme wrote: >> >>>Your HEAD probably uses the glibtool(ize) installation on your local box, >>>which on 10.2 by default is 1.4.2. The tarball was built using the FreeBSD >>>libtool, which is 1.3.4. This version did not know about Darwin yet and will >>>not create any sort of shared library on this platform. The solution is >>>building the tarball with a more recent version of libtool. >>> >>>Maybe Apache should fail more conclusively if the user wants .so modules and >>>the build system can't do them, but that's a different question from getting >>>the functionality to work. >>> >>>I think the ASF roll environment should bump its libtool. I doubt Darwin is >>>the only platform that would benefit from that. >> >>This is my doing. >> >>Suggestion; could you offer a patch to build/httpd_roll_release that warns >>the RM that the version of buildconf is too stale? > > > Checking against 1.4.2 would be a good-thing(TM) indeed, but doesn't > guarantee that on certain platforms (such as darwin, where the mainstream > libtool port doesn't work) this will not break things again... > > We've been playing the libtool game since I started building 2.0. At one > point or another, it broke things (I remember AIX as well), and as far as I > know, noone has ever been able to get a patch incorporated into the main > tree (I mean, removing a couple of "" is not a big deal, right?)... > > We can't keep libtool on our CVS as it's GPLed, let's just keep it off > somewhere, apply the patches _we_ need, and keep our machines updated with > _our_ version which works _for_us_... Right? > > >>And yes - updating all the Apache machines would be convienent. > > > If my ex-girlfriend decides to give me back my Cube, I might be able to keep > it as an Apache Server for development and Testing on MacOS/X, since it > seems that moof is completely unmaintained... I have had to fight a little to get httpd-2.0.43 compiled and running on moof. And I am looking for a JDK1.3 for it. Any hints? > > Pier > >
Re: Whopsie on Darwin/Mac OS X 10.2.1... :-(
On 7/10/02 22:06, "Sander Temme" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I've got a Jag box that I use for my testing. Pretty clean install... Want a > user account? Thanks, but my cube would be my 4th Mac box :-) And actually the server (since it's so quiet!) Pier
Re: Whopsie on Darwin/Mac OS X 10.2.1... :-(
> If my ex-girlfriend decides to give me back my Cube, I might be able to keep > it as an Apache Server for development and Testing on MacOS/X, since it > seems that moof is completely unmaintained... I've got a Jag box that I use for my testing. Pretty clean install... Want a user account? S. -- Covalent Technologies [EMAIL PROTECTED] Engineering groupVoice: (415) 856 4214 303 Second Street #375 South Fax: (415) 856 4210 San Francisco CA 94107 PGP Fingerprint: 1E74 4E58 DFAC 2CF5 6A03 5531 AFB1 96AF B584 0AB1 === This email message is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply email and destroy all copies of the original message ===
Re: Whopsie on Darwin/Mac OS X 10.2.1... :-(
On 7/10/02 22:02, "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I've got a better idea. Let's just get jlibtool doing enough so that we > can use it everywhere. :-) +1 Downloading it off _now_ (That's where Justin's stuff was... ;-) Pier
Re: Whopsie on Darwin/Mac OS X 10.2.1... :-(
On Mon, 7 Oct 2002, Pier Fumagalli wrote: > On 7/10/02 21:45, "William A. Rowe, Jr." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > At 03:27 PM 10/7/2002, Sander Temme wrote: > >> Your HEAD probably uses the glibtool(ize) installation on your local box, > >> which on 10.2 by default is 1.4.2. The tarball was built using the FreeBSD > >> libtool, which is 1.3.4. This version did not know about Darwin yet and will > >> not create any sort of shared library on this platform. The solution is > >> building the tarball with a more recent version of libtool. > >> > >> Maybe Apache should fail more conclusively if the user wants .so modules and > >> the build system can't do them, but that's a different question from getting > >> the functionality to work. > >> > >> I think the ASF roll environment should bump its libtool. I doubt Darwin is > >> the only platform that would benefit from that. > > > > This is my doing. > > > > Suggestion; could you offer a patch to build/httpd_roll_release that warns > > the RM that the version of buildconf is too stale? > > Checking against 1.4.2 would be a good-thing(TM) indeed, but doesn't > guarantee that on certain platforms (such as darwin, where the mainstream > libtool port doesn't work) this will not break things again... > > We've been playing the libtool game since I started building 2.0. At one > point or another, it broke things (I remember AIX as well), and as far as I > know, noone has ever been able to get a patch incorporated into the main > tree (I mean, removing a couple of "" is not a big deal, right?)... > > We can't keep libtool on our CVS as it's GPLed, let's just keep it off > somewhere, apply the patches _we_ need, and keep our machines updated with > _our_ version which works _for_us_... Right? I've got a better idea. Let's just get jlibtool doing enough so that we can use it everywhere. :-) Ryan ___ Ryan Bloom [EMAIL PROTECTED] 550 Jean St Oakland CA 94610 ---
Re: Whopsie on Darwin/Mac OS X 10.2.1... :-(
On 7/10/02 21:45, "William A. Rowe, Jr." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > At 03:27 PM 10/7/2002, Sander Temme wrote: >> Your HEAD probably uses the glibtool(ize) installation on your local box, >> which on 10.2 by default is 1.4.2. The tarball was built using the FreeBSD >> libtool, which is 1.3.4. This version did not know about Darwin yet and will >> not create any sort of shared library on this platform. The solution is >> building the tarball with a more recent version of libtool. >> >> Maybe Apache should fail more conclusively if the user wants .so modules and >> the build system can't do them, but that's a different question from getting >> the functionality to work. >> >> I think the ASF roll environment should bump its libtool. I doubt Darwin is >> the only platform that would benefit from that. > > This is my doing. > > Suggestion; could you offer a patch to build/httpd_roll_release that warns > the RM that the version of buildconf is too stale? Checking against 1.4.2 would be a good-thing(TM) indeed, but doesn't guarantee that on certain platforms (such as darwin, where the mainstream libtool port doesn't work) this will not break things again... We've been playing the libtool game since I started building 2.0. At one point or another, it broke things (I remember AIX as well), and as far as I know, noone has ever been able to get a patch incorporated into the main tree (I mean, removing a couple of "" is not a big deal, right?)... We can't keep libtool on our CVS as it's GPLed, let's just keep it off somewhere, apply the patches _we_ need, and keep our machines updated with _our_ version which works _for_us_... Right? > And yes - updating all the Apache machines would be convienent. If my ex-girlfriend decides to give me back my Cube, I might be able to keep it as an Apache Server for development and Testing on MacOS/X, since it seems that moof is completely unmaintained... Pier
Re: Whopsie on Darwin/Mac OS X 10.2.1... :-(
At 03:27 PM 10/7/2002, Sander Temme wrote: >Your HEAD probably uses the glibtool(ize) installation on your local box, >which on 10.2 by default is 1.4.2. The tarball was built using the FreeBSD >libtool, which is 1.3.4. This version did not know about Darwin yet and will >not create any sort of shared library on this platform. The solution is >building the tarball with a more recent version of libtool. > >Maybe Apache should fail more conclusively if the user wants .so modules and >the build system can't do them, but that's a different question from getting >the functionality to work. > >I think the ASF roll environment should bump its libtool. I doubt Darwin is >the only platform that would benefit from that. This is my doing. Suggestion; could you offer a patch to build/httpd_roll_release that warns the RM that the version of buildconf is too stale? And yes - updating all the Apache machines would be convienent. Bill
Re: Whopsie on Darwin/Mac OS X 10.2.1... :-(
On 7/10/02 20:57, "Sander Temme" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Just tried to compile on Darwin/Mac OS X 10.2.1, and 2.0.43 doesn't want to >> build modules (darrrn)... It simply copies the .la file and doesn't even >> think about creating a .so... > > We seem to have the following in the tarball: > > [MonaLisa:~/projects/httpd-2.0.43] sctemme% srclib/apr/libtool --version > ltmain.sh (GNU libtool) 1.3.4-freebsd-ports (1.385.2.196 1999/12/07 > 21:47:57) Well, that is HOSED as it doesn't contain any "-bundle" stuff to create libraries under Darwin... It simply doesn't work under Mac OS X. > What happens if you run ./buildconf and then reconfigure && make? It recreates srclib/apr/build/libtool.m4 (DOH!) :-) Seriously speaking, the glibtool distributed with Darwin is _again_ hosed (I don't know what to do next, I'm going to hang myself to some loose rope hanging around here), how many times do I have to send patches to _world_ about it Ok, anyhow, I patched my local copy (again and again and again), rerun ./buildconf, and everything works like a charm... Of course I don't use Fink (because it sucks badly), I just rely on the "standard" Mac OS X installation, so, I get whatever apple gives me (bugs included)... Now, this is the patch I had to make against my live system to make it work: [foobared mailer, see attachment, which _of course_ will be encoded in friggin' base 64, don't complain, I know, but I paid several hundred $$$ for Office X and now I better use it] I see two options, either I come up (again) with my own LibTool package and put it up on Apache.ORG (the copy I had was moved off to another server and that server DIED, thanks J.F.Clere for noticing), or we distribute another copy of the source files (only for MacOS/X) for 2.0.43 (after I've applied the patch, and re-buildconf-ed)... For 2.0.43 the latter seems the best option (I'm going to do that on www.apache.org/~pier/), for the future, it's probably better to have the glibtool-patched-package ready, and also make sure that the glibtool we use doesn't suffer from such bugs) AH I hate this world :-( Pier (who had a _terrible_ day today, can you tell) glibtool.patch.txt Description: Binary data
Re: Whopsie on Darwin/Mac OS X 10.2.1... :-(
> * Pier Fumagalli ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote : >> Just tried to compile on Darwin/Mac OS X 10.2.1, and 2.0.43 doesn't want to >> build modules (darrrn)... It simply copies the .la file and doesn't even >> think about creating a .so... >> > I can't reproduce this with HEAD, also on 10.2.1 > Will try with .43 after dinner. Your HEAD probably uses the glibtool(ize) installation on your local box, which on 10.2 by default is 1.4.2. The tarball was built using the FreeBSD libtool, which is 1.3.4. This version did not know about Darwin yet and will not create any sort of shared library on this platform. The solution is building the tarball with a more recent version of libtool. Maybe Apache should fail more conclusively if the user wants .so modules and the build system can't do them, but that's a different question from getting the functionality to work. I think the ASF roll environment should bump its libtool. I doubt Darwin is the only platform that would benefit from that. S. -- Covalent Technologies [EMAIL PROTECTED] Engineering groupVoice: (415) 856 4214 303 Second Street #375 South Fax: (415) 856 4210 San Francisco CA 94107 PGP Fingerprint: 1E74 4E58 DFAC 2CF5 6A03 5531 AFB1 96AF B584 0AB1 === This email message is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply email and destroy all copies of the original message ===
Re: Whopsie on Darwin/Mac OS X 10.2.1... :-(
* Pier Fumagalli ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote : > Just tried to compile on Darwin/Mac OS X 10.2.1, and 2.0.43 doesn't want to > build modules (darrrn)... It simply copies the .la file and doesn't even > think about creating a .so... > I can't reproduce this with HEAD, also on 10.2.1 Will try with .43 after dinner. -Thom -- Thom May -> [EMAIL PROTECTED] "The use of unmanned aircraft could significantly improve the survivability of combat missions" -- Boeing Defense study
Re: Whopsie on Darwin/Mac OS X 10.2.1... :-(
> Just tried to compile on Darwin/Mac OS X 10.2.1, and 2.0.43 doesn't want to > build modules (darrrn)... It simply copies the .la file and doesn't even > think about creating a .so... We seem to have the following in the tarball: [MonaLisa:~/projects/httpd-2.0.43] sctemme% srclib/apr/libtool --version ltmain.sh (GNU libtool) 1.3.4-freebsd-ports (1.385.2.196 1999/12/07 21:47:57) What happens if you run ./buildconf and then reconfigure && make? S. -- Covalent Technologies [EMAIL PROTECTED] Engineering groupVoice: (415) 856 4214 303 Second Street #375 South Fax: (415) 856 4210 San Francisco CA 94107 PGP Fingerprint: 1E74 4E58 DFAC 2CF5 6A03 5531 AFB1 96AF B584 0AB1 === This email message is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply email and destroy all copies of the original message ===
Whopsie on Darwin/Mac OS X 10.2.1... :-(
Just tried to compile on Darwin/Mac OS X 10.2.1, and 2.0.43 doesn't want to build modules (darrrn)... It simply copies the .la file and doesn't even think about creating a .so... Will look into it... :-( Pier
