apr-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From jean-frederic clere <jfrederic.cl...@fujitsu-siemens.com>
Subject Re: libapr and --disable-shared?
Date Thu, 05 Jul 2001 12:37:02 GMT
"Pier P. Fumagalli" wrote:
> Copying the Tomcat list....  (barf barf, too much crossposting :) :)
>     Pier
> jean-frederic clere at jfrederic.clere@fujitsu-siemens.com wrote:
> >>
> >> I'm going to do it... And if he remembers his -1, he'll roll back :)
> >
> > Well, I said that the problems we had in mod_webapp due to APR should be
> > solved in APR not in mod_webapp. I think that not a -1 for using APR sources
> > instead APR installation. It is just a matter of configure/makefiles I am sure
> > Pier will not -1 a proposal to support both APR sources and APR installation
> > in mod_webapp.
> Right _now_ the only way to be sure to build correctly, is to do it from the
> sources, and so that's what I'm going to do. If, in the future, the build
> and installation process for APR will allow us to build also from a possible
> APR distribution, I'll be more than happy to support it... But now, it's
> better to switch.
> > I am also worried with mod_webapp for Apache-2.0, what will happend when a
> > internal typedef of APR comming from httpd will be used by mod_webapp and will
> > be handled differently there because of different APR version?
> Who said that for Apache 2.0 there will be 2 different versions of APR? I
> never did (I actually said quite the contrary, that it would be cool to link
> against the HTTPd binary as they do in BeOS.

Now a day it is a little stricky: to link staticly against httpd we need a
config.m4 to put in httpd-2.0/modules/web_app and run autoconf to rebuild the
configure of httpd-2.0...

> > I am not every happy to use APR sources in mod_webapp, because I use a "libapr
> > and --disable-shared" for mod_webapp on my test platforms (Linux and
> > ReliantUnix).
> Hmmm... That's why you don't want to build mod_webapp using the APR sources?
> > It did not work because APR needs some "system libraries". To work-around this
> > problem I have added a LDFLAGS/CFLAGS in mod_webapp makefiles for that. I
> > think that the information about which "system libraries" are neeed should be
> > provided by APR in APRVARS.
> You see? How can I get access to APRVARS if I don't use the APR sources?
> Should I just wait for APR to be released as 1.0 to start working on
> mod_webapp again? The _right_ way to do it _now_ is using APR from the
> sources... It's actually the _only_ simple way. As Apache 2.0 does.

Yes I agree.

> > I have also tried with a shared libapr, but that was some weeks ago. I
> > remember MM problems and some "system library missing".
> DOH! ???? So why do you keep saying that you're against using sources...
> Since all those problems are simply fixed by using them....

No, I am not against using the APR sources, I was just thinking that the time
needed to change mod_webapp could have been used to fix APR. (But it is more
complicated that I excepted it). 

>     Pier

View raw message