This is the mail archive of the cygwin-apps@cygwin.com mailing list for the Cygwin project.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: [ITP] Apache 2.0


On Jun 20 12:20, Max Bowsher wrote:
> Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> >On Jun 20 01:57, Max Bowsher wrote:
> >>There doesn't seem to be any particular consensus between Linux distros on
> >>whether the package should be called "apache2" or "httpd".
> >>I have chosen to follow the naming of the official tarball, and call it
> >>"httpd". (Red Hat/Fedora does the same, FWIW)
> >
> >I like "apache2" better, FWIW.
> 
> The assumption that package name == tarball stem name is somewhat implied 
> by the generic-build-script system. It wouldn't be impossible to work 
> around, but it would be a bit weird.
> 
> What should the filenames be?

Oh, I don't care.  I just expressed my opinion.  If you're more happy
with httpd, it's your choice.

> >- Why is the library not in /usr/bin as every other shared lib which is
> >load-time linked?
> 
> It seemed neater, and eliminating potential problems, to put it alongside 
> the only executable that needed it, so that it would be found independent 
> of PATH.
> 
> >- Why is it called .so?  I have no problems with run-time linked modules
> > called .so, we already have a couple of these, but I'm reluctant to call
> > load-time linked libs .so. Did you test it on 9x?
> 
> No, I said goodbye to my last 9x machine a *loooong* time ago.
> 
> > I know for sure that
> > you can call executables "foo" instead of "foo.exe" on NT, but the same
> >doesn't work on 9x.  What about load-time linked DLLs?
> >
> >- Why are the *.dlla. and *.la files in /usr/sbin?  They belong under
> >/usr/lib, don't they?
> 
> The .so naming was specifically to cause this, (it's the only way to stop 
> libtool from putting the dll in ../bin). The reason was to keep all of the 
> files related to this implementation detail in a single directory.

I understand what you are up to and the idea is neat.  But you know that
cygwin1.dll is in /bin anyway.  If the system can't find cygwin1.dll, it's
pretty much irrelevant if it finds cyghttpd2core.{so,dll}, isn't it?
I think it might be better to keep it in /bin and especially keep the dll
suffix to avoid any potential problem with 9x.  You have been warned ;-)


Corinna

-- 
Corinna Vinschen                  Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to
Cygwin Project Co-Leader          mailto:cygwin@cygwin.com
Red Hat, Inc.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]