On 6/15/2019 2:54 AM, Willy Tarreau wrote:
Actually maybe we should have some super-options separate from the target
to decide what feature set to enable. Instead of having just TARGET being
mandatory, we could have both TARGET and OPTIONS for example. Then one
could just build like this :
On Sat, Jun 15, 2019 at 05:29:49PM +0200, Tim Düsterhus wrote:
> Willy,
> William,
>
> Am 14.06.19 um 22:41 schrieb Willy Tarreau:
> > Maybe we could have a "recommended" variant for each of these based on what
> > people "usually" enable in such environments.
> >
>
> I've explained in
Willy,
William,
Am 14.06.19 um 22:41 schrieb Willy Tarreau:
> Maybe we could have a "recommended" variant for each of these based on what
> people "usually" enable in such environments.
>
I've explained in Message-ID
67c868d5-32bc-1a98-658e-486676099...@bastelstu.be why I consider this a
bad
Hi Shawn,
On Fri, Jun 14, 2019 at 09:03:33PM -0600, Shawn Heisey wrote:
> What I've noticed is that for the most part, you can classify source code
> downloaders in one of two camps: Either the complete novice, or the
> experienced user. The complete novice wants steps that are very simple, and
On 6/14/2019 7:01 AM, Willy Tarreau wrote:
OK. When discussing this with William, we figured it could be interesting
instead to have some aliases which are maybe more symbolic, such as :
- linux-complete : full set of supported features, will simply fail
if you don't have all libs
On Fri, Jun 14, 2019 at 10:37:09PM +0200, William Lallemand wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 14, 2019 at 05:04:51PM +0200, Willy Tarreau wrote:
> > Are you guys fine with these patches ?
> >
> > Thanks,
> > willy
>
> Looks fine to me.
Thanks!
> However, in my opinion we should have in addition a target
>
On Fri, Jun 14, 2019 at 05:04:51PM +0200, Willy Tarreau wrote:
> Are you guys fine with these patches ?
>
> Thanks,
> willy
Looks fine to me. However, in my opinion we should have in addition a target
which evolves more frequently and contains the latest features. (lua, openssl,
etc)
Could be
Are you guys fine with these patches ?
Thanks,
willy
>From 573604dd22843805c0d8e47befc1453c2da80872 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Willy Tarreau
Date: Fri, 14 Jun 2019 16:32:09 +0200
Subject: BUILD: makefile: rename "linux2628" to "linux-glibc" and remove older
targets
The linux targets have
On Fri, Jun 14, 2019 at 03:30:19PM +0200, Lukas Tribus wrote:
> I agree with Tim.
>
> I don't think anyone still deploys "heavily patched 2.4 kernels" and
> 2.6.28 is ancient itself, but a dependency. We can just call it Linux
> at this point.
>
> This removes the strange "2628" number which may
On Fri, Jun 14, 2019 at 03:11:55PM +0200, Tim Düsterhus wrote:
> These aliases still have the issue that the development headers are not
> necessarily installed, even if the distro has the headers available.
OK.
> I'm
> not sure whether there even is a need to change anything at all:
>
> - The
Hello,
On Fri, 14 Jun 2019 at 15:12, Tim Düsterhus wrote:
> > So does anyone have an opinion about the proposal above. Do not try
> > to be gentle, "this is stupid" or "don't change anything at this point"
> > are fine to me. I'd just want to be sure that whatever choice we make,
> > it will
Willy,
Am 14.06.19 um 15:01 schrieb Willy Tarreau:
> Hi again,
>
> On Wed, Jun 12, 2019 at 07:17:29PM +0200, Willy Tarreau wrote:
>>> To be honest, I don't think this is very common in OSS projects; most
>>> of them use configure scripts that just include the library if the
>>> headers are
Hi again,
On Wed, Jun 12, 2019 at 07:17:29PM +0200, Willy Tarreau wrote:
> > To be honest, I don't think this is very common in OSS projects; most
> > of them use configure scripts that just include the library if the
> > headers are detected, or not link against it at all if it isn't there.
> >
as for popular distro, for example fedora, I'd spent some time on packaging
rpm in fedora copr (rather than telling people proper Makefile options).
if there's an interest in "official" package distro, I'd take part with
fedora copr and maybe few others
ср, 12 июн. 2019 г. в 10:41, Willy Tarreau
Hi,
Le mer. 12 juin 2019 à 19:19, Willy Tarreau a écrit :
> Hi guys,
>
> On Wed, Jun 12, 2019 at 04:27:42PM +0200, Lukas Tribus wrote:
> (...)
> > I think it's a bad idea.
> >
> > Basically what Tim says (I was interrupted several times while writing
> > this email).
>
> OK, and this morning
Hi guys,
On Wed, Jun 12, 2019 at 04:27:42PM +0200, Lukas Tribus wrote:
(...)
> I think it's a bad idea.
>
> Basically what Tim says (I was interrupted several times while writing
> this email).
OK, and this morning William told me he thought the same for the same
reasons, so definitely I'm the
Hello Willy,
On Wed, 12 Jun 2019 at 07:39, Willy Tarreau wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> I'm currently re-reading my notes for the upcoming release and found
> something I noted not that long ago regarding the TARGET variable of
> the makefile. The list of operating systems hasn't changed in a while
>
Willy,
Am 12.06.19 um 07:38 schrieb Willy Tarreau:
> So my questions are :
> - does anybody think it's a bad idea ?
I do. Even if the Linux distribution in question theoretically supports
a certain feature you are:
1. Not guaranteed that the development headers are installed.
As a specific
Hi all,
I'm currently re-reading my notes for the upcoming release and found
something I noted not that long ago regarding the TARGET variable of
the makefile. The list of operating systems hasn't changed in a while
and in parallel we've added a bunch of build options that do not solely
depend on
19 matches
Mail list logo
