Well, send that patch anyways :) Even if it's not used we get to see
what worked for you.  If it at least does not break other builds, it
might have a good chance of getting applied.

On a sort of related note, anybody have good experience on how we can
ensure that bug fix releases stay source and even binary compatible?
There's a bunch of rules related to that suff right?

On 5/2/07, Kit Plummer <christopher_plummer@raytheon.com> wrote:
> Concur.  I'm not sure how this will happen.  We're only working this
> on Linux...and are definitely not experts in the autogen/configure/
> make arena.
>
> We've been able to build the .so - but, I'm not sure we could
> recommend a patch.
>
> Kit
>
> On May 2, 2007, at 11:08 AM, Timothy Bish wrote:
>
> > Special care needs to be taken when doing this as I wasn't able to get
> > the shared library to build on Solaris, it would need to be tried
> > on all
> > the platforms before we make that change in trunk.
> >
> > Nathan Mittler wrote:
> >> Ideally, the build should generate both the static and dynamic
> >> versions of
> >> the library.  Patches are always welcome :)
> >>
> >> On 5/2/07, Kit Plummer <christopher_plummer@raytheon.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Curious if there is a reason the default build for activemq-cpp
> >>> is to
> >>> an archive - rather than a shared object library.  The thing ends up
> >>> rather large, making it an uncomfortable fit in some systems I'm
> >>> working on.
> >>>
> >>> Thoughts?
> >>>
> >>> Kit
> >>>
> >>
> >
>
>


-- 
Regards,
Hiram

Blog: http://hiramchirino.com