[ITP] Apache 2.0

[Max Bowsher]

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?

Like this:?

apache2-<ver>-<rel>.patch
apache2-<ver>-<rel>.sh
httpd-<ver>.tar.bz2

Or, all httpd, but the package files produced are named apache2?

I'll change the name if people really want, but it's not trivial.

>> Setup.exe URL:
>> http://www-stud.robinson.cam.ac.uk/~mob22/cygwin/
>>
>> Other URLs:
>> http://www-stud.robinson.cam.ac.uk/~mob22/cygwin/release/httpd/httpd-2.0.54-1-src.tar.bz2
>> http://www-stud.robinson.cam.ac.uk/~mob22/cygwin/release/httpd/httpd-2.0.54-1.tar.bz2
>> http://www-stud.robinson.cam.ac.uk/~mob22/cygwin/release/httpd/httpd-devel/httpd-devel-2.0.54-1.tar.bz2
>> http://www-stud.robinson.cam.ac.uk/~mob22/cygwin/release/httpd/httpd-manual/httpd-manual-2.0.54-1.tar.bz2
>>
>> Setup.hints:
>>
>> sdesc: "Apache HTTPD 2.0"
>> ldesc: "The Apache Software Foundation HTTP Server"
>> category: Net Web
>> requires: cygwin libaprutil0 libapr0
>> [...]
>
> Packaging looks mostly good but the following makes me wonder.
>
> httpd-2.0.54-1.tar.bz2:
>
>  usr/sbin/cyghttpd2core.so
>
> httpd-devel-2.0.54-1.tar.bz2:
>
>  usr/sbin/libhttpd2core.dll.a
>  usr/sbin/libhttpd2core.la
>
> That looks wrong to me.  AFAICS, httpd2 is linked against
> usr/sbin/cyghttpd2core.so.
>
> This leads to a couple of questions.
>
> - 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 can try treating it as a normal shlib, not an implementation detail, and see how that works out.

> One minor problem with your setup.hint.  htdbm2 is linked against libcrypt.
> The dependency is missing.  THis is minor, because the package dependency
> is given indirectly through the libaprutil0 dependency, but I'd add it for
> completness.

Thanks, will do.

> Besides from that, many thanks for packaging apache2!

No problem, once I found myself using it on a daily basis, I knew it was time to get a package out there :-)

Max.