apr-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From r..@covalent.net
Subject Re: cvs commit: apr/user/unix .cvsignore Makefile.in
Date Thu, 11 Jan 2001 15:18:38 GMT

> > Can I suggest a possible solution for 1, and agree 100% with 2?  The
> > possible solution, is to use two variables, LIBTOOL_LIBS, and
> > NON_LIBTOOL_LIBS.  These names are probably wrong, call they what you want
> > to.
> I guess I'm naive in wishing that an APR user using libtool could
> specify a single .la file to get APR and an APR user not using libtool
> could specify a single .a file to get APR?
> Why do we need a list of libraries?

Because libtool is a PITA.  If you read the libtool manual, it basically
says that static libraries are an old outdated way of doing things, so
libtool implements everything as a shared library, even on platforms that
don't really support shared libraries.

What this means for us, is that they don't try to link the two libraries,
APR and MM into a single library, they would rather just use two separate
libraries.  Originally, I added a hack to pull the .o files from the MM
directory, and we just used those to create our libtool library.  As soon
as we went to actually using libtool for APR, that hack became incorrect,
and we either needed to change the hack, or rip it out and start over.

I made APR report to Apache which libtool libraries it is using, because
that is the "libtool" way of doing things.  I think a part of our problem
with libtool is that we try to fight the way libtool wants things
done.  If libtool is designed to use shared libraries, then it is likely
to work best if we do that.


Ryan Bloom                        	rbb@apache.org
406 29th St.
San Francisco, CA 94131

View raw message