httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jon Travis <jtra...@covalent.net>
Subject Re: libtool in APR.
Date Fri, 31 Mar 2000 16:49:24 GMT
rbb@apache.org wrote:

> Okay,
>
> After reading the opinions expressed so far, here is my take and my plan
> for the day.  :-)
>
> It looks like libtool is more than we need for loading dso's.  It is VERY
> useful for compiling dso's however.  Seeing as how we have two projects
> and two different dso problems, lets use libtool in one project and not in
> the other.  Therefore:
>
> The dso directory is going to be removed from the build process, until it
> is actually fixed, before the alpha today.  We will release the alpha
> using the dso loading code from the Apache-2.0/src/os/foo tree today.
>
> After the alpha, we will change the dso directory to use the current
> Apache code.  And turn on compiling it again.
>
> When dsotool is released (or before if somebody gets motivated to get the
> code from Ralf), we'll take a closer look at what it provides and
> determine at that point if we want to use it in APR to load dso's.
>
> If anybody disagrees with this, let me know.  Currently, I am
> planning to remove the dso code from APR for today's alpha, because it
> doesn't build cleanly without the second patch from Jon Travis which was
> held up by this debate.  I would personally like to see Apache-2.0a2
> compile cleanly and delay this decision.
>
> Ryan

Ryan,

I understand your opinion about wanting to get another 2.0 alpha
out the door.  The main reason for my DSO patches was that I
was trying to develop a module, and with the current state of
Apache, it was not possible to work on it without butchering
the Apache source tree.  (Does 2.0 yet support inclusion
of static modules as libraries?)  This DSO patch solves that
problem perfectly for me, and I was thinking that if anyone else
wanted to do a lot of module work that this would be quite handy
to them.

I'd like to recognize an excellent points that Ralf has brought up:

o)  dsotool may not be the be-all-end-all for the DSO loading,
it currently exists in a lot of minds as the fix to all the
problems.  Nobody really knows.  (this is my own paraphrase.;-))

If a much nicer (cleaner) libtool patch would be accepted into
the tree, I'd whip one up, no problemo.  It works, it allows
people to work on DSOs in this 'limbo' stage, and it provides
as an API with which we can change the backend later if we
feel that Ralf can end world-hunger.. ;-)  Libltdl has always
built very nice for me on all the platforms I've ever developed
for -- it doesn't seem like much of a burden at all.

-- Jon



Mime
View raw message