httpd-apreq-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From David Wheeler <>
Subject Re: Building on Red Hat 9
Date Sat, 27 Mar 2004 21:36:43 GMT
On Mar 27, 2004, at 10:04 AM, Joe Schaefer wrote:

> But the document says you must INSTALL the C libs first, which
> I no longer believe is true once the patch is applied.  So is
> all the stuff in INSTALL.MacOSX which is related to that
> (, ./configure, etc.) still actually necessary?

Oh, maybe not. That'd be nice. FWIW, though, I've usually compiled the 
C libraries first on Red Hat, too. But maybe this patch doesn't make 
that necessary, either.

> If you're not sure how to address my question, the simplest
> way to find out is by removing the installed shared libs for
> libapreq in /usr/local), and see if you can do the normal perl
> build/test/install (i.e. same as you would on RH-9).  If that
> doesn't work, then we probably need to keep INSTALL.MacOSX;
> but if it does work, I think we can throw that file away now.

I removed /usr/local/lib/libapreq* and /usr/local/include/libapreq, and 
it does indeed appear to work without them. Provided the C libraries 
aren't also living anywhere else (they shouldn't be, should they?), 
you're right that we can modify INSTALL.MacOSX.

> Anyways, I'll defer the decision to you, since between the two
> of us you're the one with actual OS/X experience.  I'm just
> playing blind guessing games :-).

No, I think you're right, but I assume that things are still different 
for the poor sods on Mac OS X 10.1, where libapreq has to be statically 
compiled into Apache. So I propose the attached patch to 
INSTALL.MacOSX, instead.



View raw message