Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-new-httpd-archive@apache.org Received: (qmail 67290 invoked by uid 500); 5 Jun 2000 22:59:06 -0000 Mailing-List: contact new-httpd-help@apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk X-No-Archive: yes Reply-To: new-httpd@apache.org list-help: list-unsubscribe: list-post: Delivered-To: mailing list new-httpd@apache.org Received: (qmail 67218 invoked from network); 5 Jun 2000 22:59:06 -0000 Date: Tue, 6 Jun 2000 00:58:41 +0200 (CEST) From: Sascha Schumann X-Sender: sas@seif.foo.bar To: new-httpd@apache.org Subject: Re: APR builds concept broken horribly In-Reply-To: <393BFC70.A7532D68@Golux.Com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-Spam-Rating: locus.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N On Mon, 5 Jun 2000, Rodent of Unusual Size wrote: > Sascha Schumann wrote: > > > > If .a refers to libapr.a which contains the DSO-related > > functions, then the link editor will probably complain about > > undefined references, unless you link against libdl. > > Why should it, if the library is only named in a conditional > satisfy mode (i.e., "-lapr" rather than "libapr.a")? Forget the comment, my brain assumed that one library = one object file. In that case, the link editor will of course complain, if you use symbols from that object file and not all references are satisfied (no matter how you named the library). - Sascha