Ciao Sander,
> $ awk -f build/make_export.awk include/apr_sms_threads.h
> APR_HAS_THREADS
> apr_sms_threads_create
> apr_sms_threads_create_ex
> /APR_HAS_THREADS
>
> As you can see this produces the correct output on my
> box. I can't imagine that
> PS. Hiroyuki, could you send me your httpd-2.0/srclib/apr/apr.exports
> please? I'm curious if my thoughts are matching the behaviour on
> your machine.
apr.exports and apr.exports.patched are attached in this mail.
the former is created from apr_sms_threads.h rev 1.1 and the
latter from
Hi Hiroyuki,
I've thought about it some more and tried the following
(in the apr directory _without_ any changes to the
apr_sms_threads.h file):
$ awk -f build/make_export.awk include/apr_sms_threads.h
APR_HAS_THREADS
apr_sms_threads_create
apr_sms_threads_crea
> hi,
>
> The included is a patch which will help you making
> httpd-2.0 successfully on such OSs as FreeBSD.
> Unless applying this patch, the correct apr.exports
> file cannot be created and the make fails when server/exports.c
> is being compiled.
Oh dear, I got bitten by buildexports/make_exp
How do you veto a vote? :-)
It's unspecified in the rules, so the result is undefined. :)
-Fred
Wilfredo Sánchez, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Open Source Engineering Lead
Apple Computer, Inc., Core Operating System Group
1 Infinite Loop, Cupertino, CA 94086, 408.974-5174
>
> That Apache required Perl is no excuse to bloat up APR with that
> requirement. Apache is not APR's only client.
>
> I prefer coding perl to awk, but it's not the more portable tool.
>
> I -1 your -1. :)
How do you veto a vote? :-)
I was asking for a clear understanding of the pr
> What makes you think the awk solution is any more portable than the Perl
> solution?
awk is a standard Unix tool and has a specification in my copy of the
CAE X/OPEN docco. Perl is not. Add to that the fact that awk is a much
simpler program, can be had under a BSD license, and much is ea
> From: Cliff Woolley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Saturday, December 16, 2000 7:48 PM
>
> --- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > The Apache Group has looked at Cygwin before. We do not
> plan to include
> > support for Cygwin right now. That may change in the future, but we
> > dislike the lice
--- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> The Apache Group has looked at Cygwin before. We do not plan to include
> support for Cygwin right now. That may change in the future, but we
> dislike the license.
Just as an FYI-aside: Apache 2.0 and APR actually *do* build and run correctly
almost out
of the b
> > Nak, no, you cannot incorporate cygwin on win32 for apr/apache,
> > and, no, Win32 doesn't run ./configure, and no, we don't expect
> > anyone on win32 to handle installation of anything beyond the
> > easy-to-install activestate perl, or we incoroporate the Lucient
> > licensed awk. Apr
On Sat, 16 Dec 2000, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
> > I guess I don't follow the logic there. How exactly would Windows
> > developers run the configure script if they did not have Cygwin
> > installed? Last I checked, perl did not read sh files, so you
> > would need to have a version of /bin/sh o
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Saturday, December 16, 2000 1:01 PM
>
> > > When I originally wrote the buildexports stuff, we didn't require Perl to
> > > build Apache, because that file could be generated once and just bundled
> > > with Apache. With the move to crea
> -Original Message-
> From: Mo DeJong [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Saturday, December 16, 2000 3:56 PM
> To: dev@apr.apache.org
> Subject: Re: [EMAIL PROTECTED]: RE: *.exports in distro bundle, use
> of , Perl on Windows (was: Re: make_export.awk)]
>
>
On Sat, 16 Dec 2000, Greg Stein wrote:
> - Forwarded message from "William A. Rowe, Jr." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -
>
> From: "William A. Rowe, Jr." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: RE: *.exports in distro bundle, use of Perl on Windows (was: Re:
>
> Actually this brings up a huge issue. I'm currently battling rewrites in
> the Windows .msi installer, trying to make a 'native' extension for this
> job, or we will have to bundle 1. our own rewriter, or 2. someone else's
> rewriter. If we bundle gnu awk, we just fell into a deep pit we aren't
- Forwarded message from "William A. Rowe, Jr." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -
From: "William A. Rowe, Jr." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: RE: *.exports in distro bundle, use of Perl on Windows (was: Re:
make_export.awk)
To: "'Greg Stein'" <[
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Saturday, December 16, 2000 12:09 PM
>
> On Sat, 16 Dec 2000, Sascha Schumann wrote:
>
> > I had too much free time today, so I created make_export.awk.
> > During that I noticed that I either lack so
> We should document that URL for fetching a Windows-compatible AWK. Are there
> binary distributions? I'd also be fine redistributing from apache.org so
> that people don't have to hunt this stuff down at other sites.
Three candidates (create exactly the same output):
gawk 3.0.6 for Win3
On Sat, Dec 16, 2000 at 09:41:34PM +0100, Sascha Schumann wrote:
> > Hmm. Have you noticed apr_MD5Encode and apr_get_home_directory are in there
> > twice? Is it possible that you're getting doubles? Maybe you have a backup
> > copy of apr_uuid.h and apr_md5.h in your include directory, and it's pi
On Sat, Dec 16, 2000 at 09:27:13PM +0100, Sascha Schumann wrote:
> > What makes you think the awk solution is any more portable than the Perl
> > solution? I would much rather determine what is happening than to just
> > give up on the Perl solution. Please take a look at the definition of
> > th
> Hmm. Have you noticed apr_MD5Encode and apr_get_home_directory are in there
> twice? Is it possible that you're getting doubles? Maybe you have a backup
> copy of apr_uuid.h and apr_md5.h in your include directory, and it's picking
> them up?
line was not cleared correctly. Whoops. I used
On Sat, Dec 16, 2000 at 10:28:07AM -0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > > I dislike this idea. I realize (now) that awk is available on Windows,
> > > but Perl is already required to build Apache on Windows, and all of a
> > > sudden we are going to add the requirement of awk too. Why? We already
> What makes you think the awk solution is any more portable than the Perl
> solution? I would much rather determine what is happening than to just
> give up on the Perl solution. Please take a look at the definition of
> those functions and make sure they actually match the regex. You could
> t
On Sat, Dec 16, 2000 at 10:09:24AM -0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Sat, 16 Dec 2000, Sascha Schumann wrote:
> > I had too much free time today, so I created make_export.awk.
> > During that I noticed that I either lack some awk knowledge
> > or that the awk&#
> > I would love to know what it is. The regex isn't that complex, and
> > regex's in Perl shouldn't have really changed between 5.005_02 and
> > 5.005_03. Hm
>
> I can repeat the same effect on another machine with Red Hat
> 5.1 (also 5.005_02).
>
> Are we going to raise th
> I would love to know what it is. The regex isn't that complex, and
> regex's in Perl shouldn't have really changed between 5.005_02 and
> 5.005_03. Hm
I can repeat the same effect on another machine with Red Hat
5.1 (also 5.005_02).
Are we going to raise the entry barrier f
> > When I originally wrote the buildexports stuff, we didn't require Perl to
> > build Apache, because that file could be generated once and just bundled
> > with Apache. With the move to create those files during the build steps,
> > we now require Perl just to build. I think the best solution
> When I originally wrote the buildexports stuff, we didn't require Perl to
> build Apache, because that file could be generated once and just bundled
> with Apache. With the move to create those files during the build steps,
> we now require Perl just to build. I think the best solution is to mo
> > I dislike this idea. I realize (now) that awk is available on Windows,
> > but Perl is already required to build Apache on Windows, and all of a
> > sudden we are going to add the requirement of awk too. Why? We already
> > require Perl on every platform when building Apache, but we do not
> I dislike this idea. I realize (now) that awk is available on Windows,
> but Perl is already required to build Apache on Windows, and all of a
> sudden we are going to add the requirement of awk too. Why? We already
> require Perl on every platform when building Apache, but we do not
> current
On Sat, 16 Dec 2000, Sascha Schumann wrote:
> I had too much free time today, so I created make_export.awk.
> During that I noticed that I either lack some awk knowledge
> or that the awk's expression mechanism lacks a useful feature
> (backreferencing). I've
I had too much free time today, so I created make_export.awk.
During that I noticed that I either lack some awk knowledge
or that the awk's expression mechanism lacks a useful feature
(backreferencing). I've worked around that by using two sub's
in the r
32 matches
Mail list logo
