httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jim Jagielski <...@jaguNET.com>
Subject Re: libltdl?
Date Tue, 28 Mar 2000 16:44:09 GMT
The "fix" to libtool is pretty easy, from what I can see. I want to
make sure that the flow of libtool is the way I think it is.

rbb@apache.org wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> I saw this, after I posted my note.  This has me leaning towards the
> non-libtool side of the argument.  But, there is still the argument that
> this is why we have APR.  On platforms where libtool is broken, we could
> just implement our own layer.  As long as they both look the same it
> really shouldn't matter.
> 
> Ryan
> 
> On Tue, 28 Mar 2000, Jim Jagielski wrote:
> 
> > Another reminder that libtool does not correctly handle those
> > platforms with "traditional" versions of 'ar' that truncate filenames.
> > If we use/require libtool, then we basically break those systems.
> > This means object filenames of < 14/16 chars.
> > 
> > rbb@apache.org wrote:
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 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 know
> > > that this basically means we are duplicating somebody else's work, and I
> > > 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 before.
> > > 
> > > 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.
> > > 
> > > Ryan
> > > 
> > > On Tue, 28 Mar 2000, David Reid wrote:
> > > 
> > > > Up until now we haven't required libtool to build APR.  The recent dso

> > > > 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-alone"

> > > > 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 BeOS,

> > > > 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                        	rbb@apache.org
> > > 406 29th St.
> > > San Francisco, CA 94131
> > > -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > 
> > 
> > 
> > -- 
> > ===========================================================================
> >    Jim Jagielski   [|]   jim@jaguNET.com   [|]   http://www.jaguNET.com/
> >                 "Are you suggesting coconuts migrate??"
> > 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________________________________________
> Ryan Bloom                        	rbb@apache.org
> 406 29th St.
> San Francisco, CA 94131
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 


-- 
===========================================================================
   Jim Jagielski   [|]   jim@jaguNET.com   [|]   http://www.jaguNET.com/
                "Are you suggesting coconuts migrate??"

Mime
View raw message