Mailing-List: contact dev-help@apr.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Received-SPF: neutral (asf.osuosl.org: local policy)
Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2005 12:08:43 -0800
From: Justin Erenkrantz <justin@erenkrantz.com>
To: Chris Darroch <chrisd@pearsoncmg.com>, dev@apr.apache.org
Subject: Re: [Fwd: Re: apr-util config, etc.]
Message-ID: <B1E0712FA1901D4715D5AD96@st-augustin.ics.uci.edu>
In-Reply-To: <437A3E66.8020707@pearsoncmg.com>
References: <437A3E66.8020707@pearsoncmg.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline

--On November 15, 2005 3:00:38 PM -0500 Chris Darroch 
<chrisd@pearsoncmg.com> wrote:

>    My ultimate question, for the impatient, is whether adding
> -R to APRUTIL_LDFLAGS is an appropriate solution when using
> libraries that one expects not to have accompanying .la files.

We've had this discussion several times.  There's a group of developers who 
believe we should automatically add the -R flags and an equally vocal 
developers who believe that the user must hand-edit ldconfig on their 
platform.

At the moment, the folks who advocate not having the -R flag represent our 
state of affairs.

>    Now I didn't have a working solution yet, because this was
> just a post-buildconf, post-configure hack.  But, OTOH, the
> libaprutil-1.so was OK, with no undefined dependencies listed
> by ldd.

Setting LDFLAGS before running configure should work, like so:

LDFLAGS="-R/path/to/lib" \
./configure

is an acceptable workaround that should work.  It's what I use.

HTH.  -- justin