apr-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "David Reid" <dr...@jetnet.co.uk>
Subject Re: libaprutil
Date Fri, 15 Dec 2000 19:52:00 GMT
So will people really kick and scream if I change the library built in
apr-util to a .a instead of a .la?  This will then allow Apache to build on
BeOS (tested) (and might also get OS/2 working - Brian?)  It also brings
apr-util in line with APR's build strategy...

david


----- Original Message -----
From: "David Reid" <dreid@jetnet.co.uk>
To: "APR Development List" <dev@apr.apache.org>
Sent: Friday, December 15, 2000 2:00 PM
Subject: libaprutil


> Why are we building this as a shared library when apr gets built as a
> static?  I ask as the inclusion of libaprutil.so is what's causing me
grief
> at present in getting a built/runnable httpd.
>
> To give a bit more background the library is built but BeOS seems to have
> some strange problems actually using shared libraries that I'm fighting
with
> at present.  Once I've won the fight then this may not be an issue, but it
> does seem a bit strange that presently apr is static but aprutil is
shared.
>
> david
>
>


Mime
View raw message