httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "David Reid" <>
Subject Re: libltdl?
Date Tue, 28 Mar 2000 17:36:14 GMT
We're not talking about creating shared libraries, just using them.  If 
we're going down the full Libtool path then why d we need a dso 
directory?  We could just use the ltdl everywhere.  What happens on 
Windows?  We'd have to figure that out and then we're back to writing 
wrappers for the ltdl stuff, which seems a bit strange.  I don't mind 
either way but if we do it then do we also use libtool for building 
APR?  APR builds nice and simply now, has very little reliance on other 
platforms and as we don't need to create libraries/modules, then why 
demand libtool?

If there are bugs then we can find and fix them.  Looking at the code 
in os.c it strikes me that AIX should have a seperate directory for DSO 
to keep the code more readable.  It's easy enough to do after all!


>I would prefer to keep libtool out of APR, personally.  There are bugs
>with the Apache 1.3 code, and those would need to be fixed.  I also 
>that this basically means we are duplicating somebody else's work, and 
>dislike that idea.  Libtool has solved this problem, and we really
>shouldn't solve it again.  Perhaps the best solution is to use libtool
>until dsotool comes out, and then use it, like we have suggested 
>I hope you can tell I am torn on this issue.  I would like to keep APR
>small and flexible and as unreliant on other libraries as possible, 
but I
>would also rather not duplicate work.  I am perfectly willing to be
>persuaded one way or the other.
>On Tue, 28 Mar 2000, David Reid wrote:
>> Up until now we haven't required libtool to build APR.  The recent 
>> stuff changes all that!  Now, I don't mind if we have to add libtool 
>> usage to APR, but I'd rather not.  APR is supposed to be "stand-
>> as a library.  I know the edges have been "blurring" slightly but up 
>> until this change you could build APR by simply doing 
>> autoconf;configure;make and all was OK.  You still can for OS2 or 
>> but as the Unix dso code needs ltdl you can't.
>> So do we just go back to using the code from 1.3.x with all it's 
>> variants for Unix?  It'd be more in keeping with APR to date and 
>> shouldn't really change anything.
>> d.
>Ryan Bloom               
>406 29th St.
>San Francisco, CA 94131

View raw message