On Thu, Apr 23, 2015 at 12:28:33PM -0400, Jim Jagielski wrote:
> I tried that, but gmake totally barfed...
I have the same issue on OpenBSD.
I think the GNU->BSD Makefile style transformation implemented by
build/bsd_makefile is too simplistic. All it does it putting a dot in
front of include sta
Thx for the confirmation and the assessment. I'll have to look
at how svn does it.
> On Apr 24, 2015, at 6:34 AM, Stefan Sperling wrote:
>
> On Thu, Apr 23, 2015 at 12:28:33PM -0400, Jim Jagielski wrote:
>> I tried that, but gmake totally barfed...
>
> I have the same issue on OpenBSD.
>
> I t
There is also the "magic" that configure does at well, in
altering the directives (#ifdef -> .ifdef, for example).
I think what I'll do is, if running under *BSD, see not only
if 'make' itself is really GNUmake, but also check for 'gmake'
and, if it exists, disable BSD makefiles.
Right now, the balancer manager allows for a member to be
disabled/stopped, but it cannot *remove* that member...
Seems to me that that would be good, especially since
we could always re-use that slot.
Comments?
On Fri, Apr 24, 2015 at 07:20:01AM -0400, Jim Jagielski wrote:
> There is also the "magic" that configure does at well, in
> altering the directives (#ifdef -> .ifdef, for example).
>
> I think what I'll do is, if running under *BSD, see not only
> if 'make' itself is really GNUmake, but also chec
re-sending reply to fix httpd list.
On Fri, Apr 24, 2015 at 10:06 AM, Eric Covener wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 24, 2015 at 10:00 AM, Joshua Marantz wrote:
>> Should I infer that no one is currently working on it?
>
> From everything I've seen, just Stefan (from mod_h2). I don't think
> anyone here has
