Re: Makefile OPTIONS (was: Re: Apache 2.2.8 + mod_authnz_ldap)
> If this is a fixed dependency, then it's a bug in the port's Makefile. If it's > not set in stone (i.e.: mod_authnz_ldap could also work with > mod_fictional_3rdparty_ldap), then applying the logic you suggest, would kill > the option to use mod_fictional_3rdparty_ldap. > > Set in stone would mean, "if there is a port mod_fictional_3rdparty_ldap, or > enough people have complained that they cannot use > mod_fictional_3rdparty_ldap, even though there's not a port for it". It seems that the main problem arises from usage of OPTIONS. If I had specified WITH_LDAP_MODULES (a category), both modules (ldap and authnz_ldap) would have been included. If I had specified WITH_LDAP, according to 'make show-options', it would have implied the option WITH_LDAP_MODULES. However, when modules are selected through OPTIONS dialog, AUTHNZ_LDAP means just AUTHNZ_LDAP and LDAP means just LDAP. Theoretically, this is not an error in port's Makefile, rather something that gives even more flexibility to the user. However, the same can't be said for user-friendliness. And to comment on your message, I see no other LDAP-related options in Apache which would make this a fixed dependency. Regards, -- Nino ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: Makefile OPTIONS (was: Re: Apache 2.2.8 + mod_authnz_ldap)
On Friday 09 May 2008 15:15:05 n j wrote: > > What are you using for apr? The one that comes with apache itself, or the > > devel/apr port? > > AFAICT, the one that comes with Apache itself. > > It would seem that mod_authnz_ldap required mod_ldap to be compiled in > Apache to work. Having little or no experience at all with Apache + > LDAP combination so far, this was not really straightforward to me. If this is a fixed dependency, then it's a bug in the port's Makefile. If it's not set in stone (i.e.: mod_authnz_ldap could also work with mod_fictional_3rdparty_ldap), then applying the logic you suggest, would kill the option to use mod_fictional_3rdparty_ldap. Set in stone would mean, "if there is a port mod_fictional_3rdparty_ldap, or enough people have complained that they cannot use mod_fictional_3rdparty_ldap, even though there's not a port for it". -- Mel Problem with today's modular software: they start with the modules and never get to the software part. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Makefile OPTIONS (was: Re: Apache 2.2.8 + mod_authnz_ldap)
> What are you using for apr? The one that comes with apache itself, or the > devel/apr port? AFAICT, the one that comes with Apache itself. It would seem that mod_authnz_ldap required mod_ldap to be compiled in Apache to work. Having little or no experience at all with Apache + LDAP combination so far, this was not really straightforward to me. However, that combined with the (relatively) recent introduction of OPTIONS to apache22 port leads me to ask the question if the Makefile OPTIONS framework allows for dependencies (i.e. I mark one, the framework automatically ticks other options my selection depends on). Or, in this case, selecting mod_authnz_ldap automatically selects mod_ldap. From the (scarce) documentation in the Porters Handbook, it would seem that this is not currently possible, yet it doesn't seem impossible to invoke another dialog and warn the user about inclusion of additional options. Can anyone provide some insight into this? Regards, -- Nino ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: Apache 2.2.8 + mod_authnz_ldap
On Friday 09 May 2008 02:03:01 n j wrote: > Hello, > > did anyone experience any problems trying to install mod_authnz_ldap > with Apache 2.2.8 on FreeBSD 6.3? > > I ran into the following trouble: > > mod_authnz_ldap.c:41:2: #error mod_authnz_ldap requires APR-util to > have LDAP support built in. To fix add --with-ldap to ./configure > which caused "Stop in > /usr/ports/www/apache22/work/httpd-2.2.8/modules/aaa. *** Error code > 1". What are you using for apr? The one that comes with apache itself, or the devel/apr port? I found in practice that even though the "APR from ports" option contains a warning, it works better if you have more software depending on apr (i.e., subversion) and it's also better manageable with the plugins (in my case db4*). F.e., I don't have to rebuild apache, if I want to migrate to the latest and greatest db4 minor release. -- Mel Problem with today's modular software: they start with the modules and never get to the software part. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Apache 2.2.8 + mod_authnz_ldap
Hello, did anyone experience any problems trying to install mod_authnz_ldap with Apache 2.2.8 on FreeBSD 6.3? I ran into the following trouble: mod_authnz_ldap.c:41:2: #error mod_authnz_ldap requires APR-util to have LDAP support built in. To fix add --with-ldap to ./configure which caused "Stop in /usr/ports/www/apache22/work/httpd-2.2.8/modules/aaa. *** Error code 1". This helped: http://brent.kearneys.ca/sysadmin/2006/building-ldap-authentication-into-apache2/ It turns out that by configuring manually, -lldap indeed gets added to APRUTIL_LIBS, while the same configuration adds -liconv in that spot when run "the ports way" (make; make install). This caused some more problems when returning to normal build as libtool starts to complain about being unable to infer tagged configuration. Resolving that, build finishes ok, but fails again during install, this time trying to relink libaprutil.la, again due to failing to infer tag. Adding "tagname=CC" just before it's about to fail in libtool script helped. Hope this helps someone. It might be an Apache error as there are some FreeBSD-specific hacks in the original libtool code; on the other hand, it might be that the problem is the port. Regards, -- Nino ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
