Re: FYI: Successful Install of Perl 5.8.0 RC 1 + Apache 2.0.36 + ModPerl-2.0 on OSX 10.1.4

[David Hand]

On Thu, Jun 13, 2002 at 04:52:14PM -0700, Randal L. Schwartz wrote:
> I'm still using UFS for slash.  Adobe products (so called "carbonized"
> latest releases of things like Illustrator and so on) won't install.
> Durn.  Stupid Adobe.  "Compatible with OSX" on the box, but it isn't.

I don't know if you've tried this, yet, but I've gotten at least two
incompatible-with-UFS applications to work:  Mozilla (though it seems
like someone mentioned it works now?) and Palm Desktop.  Basically, I
symlinked certain key directories to directories I've made on my HFS+
partition, then installed the applications in an Applications folder on
the HFS+ partition.  Mozilla wasn't too hard, but Palm Desktop was a
serious pain.

-- 
David "Cogent" Hand 
   

Re: FYI: Successful Install of Perl 5.8.0 RC 1 + Apache 2.0.36 + ModPerl-2.0 on OSX 10.1.4

[Randal L. Schwartz]

> "Ellem" == Ellem  <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

Ellem> So I'm the only one using UFS?

I've been using UFS since I started using OSX (at the 10.1 release)
because I couldn't get a decent backup solution for HFS that worked
with OSX.

I'm still using UFS for slash.  Adobe products (so called "carbonized"
latest releases of things like Illustrator and so on) won't install.
Durn.  Stupid Adobe.  "Compatible with OSX" on the box, but it isn't.

-- 
Randal L. Schwartz - Stonehenge Consulting Services, Inc. - +1 503 777 0095
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://www.stonehenge.com/merlyn/>
Perl/Unix/security consulting, Technical writing, Comedy, etc. etc.
See PerlTraining.Stonehenge.com for onsite and open-enrollment Perl training!

Re: FYI: Successful Install of Perl 5.8.0 RC 1 + Apache 2.0.36 + ModPerl-2.0 on OSX 10.1.4

[Randal L. Schwartz]

> "Sherm" == Sherm Pendley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

Sherm> It's surprising that make would behave this way, though. Why would
Sherm> make assume that "install" really means "-f install," when there's a
Sherm> target named "install" in the default makefile?

No, it tries to "make" a file named "install", but there's already one,
so it's done!

-- 
Randal L. Schwartz - Stonehenge Consulting Services, Inc. - +1 503 777 0095
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://www.stonehenge.com/merlyn/>
Perl/Unix/security consulting, Technical writing, Comedy, etc. etc.
See PerlTraining.Stonehenge.com for onsite and open-enrollment Perl training!

Re: FYI: Successful Install of Perl 5.8.0 RC 1 + Apache 2.0.36 + ModPerl-2.0 on OSX 10.1.4

[Rick Frankel]

On Fri, Jun 07, 2002 at 09:29:40AM -0400, Chris Nandor wrote:
> In article ,
>  [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Peter N Lewis) wrote:
> 
> > At 18:57 -0400 5/6/02, Rick Frankel wrote:
> > 
> > >so, adding:
> > > .PHONY: install
> > >
> > >at the top of the (gnu)makefile will force the install target to
> > >execute.
> .PHONY is not just a GNU make thing anyway; I know dmake uses it (we use 
> it in the MacPerl Makefile, which uses dmake), so that makes it even 
> less likely.  There are also multiple .PHONY declarations in perl's 

FWIW, i think it was first used in gnu make. I know it's not in the
old Feldman make or /usr/ccs/bin/make on solaris.

> Makefile.SH already, including one for the "install" target, so I 
> imagine it is used on other *make, too.  From my generated Makefile on 
> Linux:
> 
> .PHONY: install install-strip install-all install-verbose install-silent 
> \
> no-install install.perl install.man install.html
> 
> 
> So I dunno what the deal is ... maybe the problem is that .PHONY is a 
> no-op on Mac OS X's make?

Curious. I just tried a test on OSX w/ /usr/bin/make (linked to
/usr/bin/gnumake) AND /usr/bin/bsdmake and .PHONY: install works.


rick

Re: FYI: Successful Install of Perl 5.8.0 RC 1 + Apache 2.0.36 + ModPerl-2.0 on OSX 10.1.4

[Chris Nandor]

In article ,
 [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Peter N Lewis) wrote:

> At 18:57 -0400 5/6/02, Rick Frankel wrote:
> 
> >so, adding:
> > .PHONY: install
> >
> >at the top of the (gnu)makefile will force the install target to
> >execute.
> 
> Presumably that would be a NOP on any other makefile anyway (unless 
> someone ever went "make .PHONY" which is probably a reasonable 
> acceptable risk ;-).

.PHONY is not just a GNU make thing anyway; I know dmake uses it (we use 
it in the MacPerl Makefile, which uses dmake), so that makes it even 
less likely.  There are also multiple .PHONY declarations in perl's 
Makefile.SH already, including one for the "install" target, so I 
imagine it is used on other *make, too.  From my generated Makefile on 
Linux:


.PHONY: install install-strip install-all install-verbose install-silent 
\
no-install install.perl install.man install.html


So I dunno what the deal is ... maybe the problem is that .PHONY is a 
no-op on Mac OS X's make?

-- 
Chris Nandor  [EMAIL PROTECTED]http://pudge.net/
Open Source Development Network[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://osdn.com/

Re: FYI: Successful Install of Perl 5.8.0 RC 1 + Apache 2.0.36 +ModPerl-2.0 on OSX 10.1.4

[Peter N Lewis]

At 18:57 -0400 5/6/02, Rick Frankel wrote:

>so, adding:
> .PHONY: install
>
>at the top of the (gnu)makefile will force the install target to
>execute.

Presumably that would be a NOP on any other makefile anyway (unless 
someone ever went "make .PHONY" which is probably a reasonable 
acceptable risk ;-).  So can we convince folks to start including 
this line if they want an INSTALL file?

BTW, is the syntax then

..PHONY: clean install

?

Thanks,
Peter.

-- 
  

Re: FYI: Successful Install of Perl 5.8.0 RC 1 + Apache 2.0.36 + ModPerl-2.0 on OSX 10.1.4

[Rick Frankel]

On Wed, Jun 05, 2002 at 08:14:00AM +0800, Peter N Lewis wrote:
> At 14:05 -0700 4/6/02, Alex S wrote:
> If you want a more general solution than Perl changing the name of 
> the files to *.txt (which would mnake sense anyway as someone else 
> pointed out), then i think  changing make is far more likely than 
> changing Apple's file system.  What about updating make to deal with 
> the difference between a file called INSTALL and a tag install rather 
> than just blindly using the file system.
> 
> Heck, even a special case for install/INSTALL would resolve a lot of 
> problems - perhaps even just a special build for Mac OS X that dealt 
> with the issue.

Another approach (for gnu make). From make.info:

Phony Targets
=

   A phony target is one that is not really the name of a file.  It is
just a name for some commands to be executed when you make an explicit
request.  There are two reasons to use a phony target: to avoid a
conflict with a file of the same name, and to improve performance.

   If you write a rule whose commands will not create the target file,
the commands will be executed every time the target comes up for
remaking.  Here is an example:

 clean:
 rm *.o temp

Because the `rm' command does not create a file named `clean',
probably
no such file will ever exist.  Therefore, the `rm' command will be
executed every time you say `make clean'.

   The phony target will cease to work if anything ever does create a
file named `clean' in this directory.  Since it has no prerequisites,
the file `clean' would inevitably be considered up to date, and its
commands would not be executed.  To avoid this problem, you can
explicitly declare the target to be phony, using the special target
`.PHONY' (*note Special Built-in Target Names: Special Targets.) as
follows:

 .PHONY : clean

Once this is done, `make clean' will run the commands regardless of
whether there is a file named `clean'.

   Since it knows that phony targets do not name actual files that
could be remade from other files, `make' skips the implicit rule
search
for phony targets (*note Implicit Rules::).  This is why declaring a
target phony is good for performance, even if you are not worried
about
the actual file existing.

   Thus, you first write the line that states that `clean' is a phony
target, then you write the rule, like this:

 .PHONY: clean
 clean:
 rm *.o temp

--

so, adding:
.PHONY: install

at the top of the (gnu)makefile will force the install target to
execute.

rick

Re: FYI: Successful Install of Perl 5.8.0 RC 1 + Apache 2.0.36 + ModPerl-2.0 on OSX 10.1.4

[Peter N Lewis]

At 14:05 -0700 4/6/02, Alex S wrote:
>I'd prefer to see if we could convince the developers at Apple to 
>use a better file system.  I'm hoping that one of the new people on 
>the core Apple dev team (forget his name at the moment), who is a 
>filesystems guy, is there to make that all better!  A journalled FS 
>would be nice too.

If you want a more general solution than Perl changing the name of 
the files to *.txt (which would mnake sense anyway as someone else 
pointed out), then i think  changing make is far more likely than 
changing Apple's file system.  What about updating make to deal with 
the difference between a file called INSTALL and a tag install rather 
than just blindly using the file system.

According to the man file for gnumake:

>make  executes  commands  in the makefile to update one or
>more target names, where name is typically a program.   If
>no  -f option is present, make will look for the makefiles
>GNUmakefile, makefile, and Makefile, in that order.

Nothing is mentioned about what the target an be, I guess the idea is 
you can do "make file.o" and have it figure out to compile the .c 
file?

Heck, even a special case for install/INSTALL would resolve a lot of 
problems - perhaps even just a special build for Mac OS X that dealt 
with the issue.

Expecting a case sensitive file system by default out of Apple any 
time soon is a bit of a wish - beside, Mac OS still uses all the meta 
data stuff that HFS provides that other file systems do not generally 
provide.  As for UFS, I've heard of lots of people having Mac OS 
related problems with that (ie, the file system works fine, but the 
applications don't).
Peter.
-- 
  

Re: FYI: Successful Install of Perl 5.8.0 RC 1 + Apache 2.0.36 + ModPerl-2.0 on OSX 10.1.4

[Sherm Pendley]

On Tuesday, June 4, 2002, at 05:45 PM, Alex S wrote:

> The make command will take the argument typically used to specify a 
> "tag" in the make file, and interpret it to mean the filename of a 
> makefile, if the file exists.

> Well... I hope I've thoroughly confused you.  :)

Sorry to disappoint you, then... Your explanation made perfect sense. :-)

It's surprising that make would behave this way, though. Why would make 
assume that "install" really means "-f install," when there's a target 
named "install" in the default makefile? I can see why it would revert 
to trying that if it couldn't find a makefile, or couldn't find an 
"install" target, but why would it second guess perfectly correct input? 
That's just bizarre.

At any rate, the suggested workaround is a great idea. I'd even go 
further than that, and add the .txt extension to *all* of the plain text 
files, rather than just INSTALL, so that users of GUI-based systems see 
an icon indicating that they're text files, and so that when they click 
on them they open in their preferred editor.

sherm--

Never put off until tomorrow what you can do today. There might be a law 
against it by that time.

Re: FYI: Successful Install of Perl 5.8.0 RC 1 + Apache 2.0.36 +ModPerl-2.0 on OSX 10.1.4

[Alex S]

Sherm,

The make command will take the argument typically used to specify a 
"tag" in the make file, and interpret it to mean the filename of a 
makefile, if the file exists.  Normally, the "INSTALL" file does not get 
confused with the "make install" command, which means to make the 
install tag of the default makefile.  But because of the case 
insensitivity of HFS, the 'make install' command gets confused with a 
file that it's in the Perl bundle called "INSTALL", and says it can't 
find the makefile directive or some such nonsense.

Well... I hope I've thoroughly confused you.  :)

-Alex

Sherm Pendley wrote:

> On Tuesday, June 4, 2002, at 04:44 PM, David Wheeler wrote:
>
>> Ach. I wonder if we could convince the porters to change the 
>> distribution so
>> that we don't have to do this:
>>
>>  mv INSTALL INSTALL.txt;
>
>
> Perhaps I'm being unusually dense today, but I don't get it. Why do we 
> have to do that?
>
> sherm--
>

Re: FYI: Successful Install of Perl 5.8.0 RC 1 + Apache 2.0.36 +ModPerl-2.0 on OSX 10.1.4

[David Wheeler]

On 6/4/02 2:28 PM, "ellem" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> claimed:

> So I'm the only one using UFS?

I'm not using it. But perhaps the next time I rebuild -- which I expect will
be only after Jaguar ships.

David

-- 
David Wheeler AIM: dwTheory
[EMAIL PROTECTED] ICQ: 15726394
http://david.wheeler.net/  Yahoo!: dew7e
   Jabber: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: FYI: Successful Install of Perl 5.8.0 RC 1 + Apache 2.0.36 +ModPerl-2.0 on OSX 10.1.4

[ellem]

So I'm the only one using UFS?
On Tuesday, June 4, 2002, at 05:13 PM, Alex S wrote:

> Yeah... true.  Both would be good.  Short term fix, and then long term 
> fix.  Still would like to see OS X with a REAL FS.  :)  Unforunately, I 
> do understand that it's a complex issue in terms of compatibility.
>
> -Alex
>
>
> David Wheeler wrote:
>
>> On 6/4/02 2:05 PM, "Alex S" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> claimed:
>>
>>
>>> I'd prefer to see if we could convince the developers at Apple to 
>>> use a
>>> better file system.  I'm hoping that one of the new people on the core
>>> Apple dev team (forget his name at the moment), who is a filesystems
>>> guy, is there to make that all better!  A journalled FS would be nice 
>>> too.
>>>
>>> But for now, it's wishful thinking!
>>>
>>
>> Yes, and we need to make due with what's available now, and the easier 
>> it is
>> for people to install, the easier it'll be to get people on the 
>> platform.
>> This is a very simple change to the Perl distribution.
>>
>> David
>>
>>
>
>
>
>

--
Lou Moran
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://ellem.dyn.dhs.org:5281/
(OS X)

Re: FYI: Successful Install of Perl 5.8.0 RC 1 + Apache 2.0.36 + ModPerl-2.0 on OSX 10.1.4

[Sherm Pendley]

On Tuesday, June 4, 2002, at 04:44 PM, David Wheeler wrote:

> Ach. I wonder if we could convince the porters to change the 
> distribution so
> that we don't have to do this:
>
>  mv INSTALL INSTALL.txt;

Perhaps I'm being unusually dense today, but I don't get it. Why do we 
have to do that?

sherm--

Never put off until tomorrow what you can do today. There might be a law 
against it by that time.

Re: FYI: Successful Install of Perl 5.8.0 RC 1 + Apache 2.0.36 +ModPerl-2.0 on OSX 10.1.4

[Ian Ragsdale]

If you are hoping for case-sensitivity, which is the only part of a new file
system that would fix this problem, don't get your hopes up - I'm pretty
positive that Apple will never make their default file system case
sensitive.  This has been discussed at length in many forums.

As for HFS+, what does everybody dislike about it?  The only problem I see
with it is a lack of journaling.  It has support for huge files & volumes,
is fast, B*tree based and has support for extended metadata & forked files.
If you compare it's feature list to most file systems people ask for, the
only thing it's really missing is journaling.  It is not the MOST robust
file system I've heard of, but I haven't had a problem with it in a few
years.  It got corrupted under OS 9, but that was more an issue of OS 9's
stability.

Ian

On 6/4/02 4:05 PM, "Alex S" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> I'd prefer to see if we could convince the developers at Apple to use a
> better file system.  I'm hoping that one of the new people on the core
> Apple dev team (forget his name at the moment), who is a filesystems
> guy, is there to make that all better!  A journalled FS would be nice too.
> 
> But for now, it's wishful thinking!
> 
> -Alex
> 
> 
> David Wheeler wrote:
> 
>> On 6/4/02 1:35 PM, "R Blake" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> claimed:
>> 
>>  
>> 
>>> for those who are interested ..
>>> 
>>> "Building a Bleeding Edge OpenSource OSX Server"
>>> http://homepage.mac.com/blakers
>>>
>>> 
>> 
>> Ach. I wonder if we could convince the porters to change the distribution so
>> that we don't have to do this:
>> 
>> mv INSTALL INSTALL.txt;
>> 
>> David
>> 
>>  
>> 
> 
> 
> 
> 

Re: FYI: Successful Install of Perl 5.8.0 RC 1 + Apache 2.0.36 +ModPerl-2.0 on OSX 10.1.4

[Alex S]

Yeah... true.  Both would be good.  Short term fix, and then long term 
fix.  Still would like to see OS X with a REAL FS.  :)  Unforunately, I 
do understand that it's a complex issue in terms of compatibility.

-Alex


David Wheeler wrote:

>On 6/4/02 2:05 PM, "Alex S" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> claimed:
>
>  
>
>>I'd prefer to see if we could convince the developers at Apple to use a
>>better file system.  I'm hoping that one of the new people on the core
>>Apple dev team (forget his name at the moment), who is a filesystems
>>guy, is there to make that all better!  A journalled FS would be nice too.
>>
>>But for now, it's wishful thinking!
>>
>>
>
>Yes, and we need to make due with what's available now, and the easier it is
>for people to install, the easier it'll be to get people on the platform.
>This is a very simple change to the Perl distribution.
>
>David
>
>  
>

Re: FYI: Successful Install of Perl 5.8.0 RC 1 + Apache 2.0.36 +ModPerl-2.0 on OSX 10.1.4

[David Wheeler]

On 6/4/02 2:05 PM, "Alex S" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> claimed:

> I'd prefer to see if we could convince the developers at Apple to use a
> better file system.  I'm hoping that one of the new people on the core
> Apple dev team (forget his name at the moment), who is a filesystems
> guy, is there to make that all better!  A journalled FS would be nice too.
> 
> But for now, it's wishful thinking!

Yes, and we need to make due with what's available now, and the easier it is
for people to install, the easier it'll be to get people on the platform.
This is a very simple change to the Perl distribution.

David

-- 
David Wheeler AIM: dwTheory
[EMAIL PROTECTED] ICQ: 15726394
http://david.wheeler.net/  Yahoo!: dew7e
   Jabber: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: FYI: Successful Install of Perl 5.8.0 RC 1 + Apache 2.0.36 +ModPerl-2.0 on OSX 10.1.4

[Alex S]

I'd prefer to see if we could convince the developers at Apple to use a 
better file system.  I'm hoping that one of the new people on the core 
Apple dev team (forget his name at the moment), who is a filesystems 
guy, is there to make that all better!  A journalled FS would be nice too.

But for now, it's wishful thinking!

-Alex


David Wheeler wrote:

>On 6/4/02 1:35 PM, "R Blake" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> claimed:
>
>  
>
>>for those who are interested ..
>>
>>"Building a Bleeding Edge OpenSource OSX Server"
>>http://homepage.mac.com/blakers
>>
>>
>
>Ach. I wonder if we could convince the porters to change the distribution so
>that we don't have to do this:
>
> mv INSTALL INSTALL.txt;
>
>David
>
>  
>

Re: FYI: Successful Install of Perl 5.8.0 RC 1 + Apache 2.0.36 +ModPerl-2.0 on OSX 10.1.4

[David Wheeler]

On 6/4/02 1:35 PM, "R Blake" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> claimed:

> for those who are interested ..
> 
> "Building a Bleeding Edge OpenSource OSX Server"
> http://homepage.mac.com/blakers

Ach. I wonder if we could convince the porters to change the distribution so
that we don't have to do this:

 mv INSTALL INSTALL.txt;

David

-- 
David Wheeler AIM: dwTheory
[EMAIL PROTECTED] ICQ: 15726394
http://david.wheeler.net/  Yahoo!: dew7e
   Jabber: [EMAIL PROTECTED]