httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Greg Stein <>
Subject choice of libtool? (was: Re: cvs commit: httpd-2.0
Date Thu, 21 Dec 2000 22:04:39 GMT
Keep libtool.

We shouldn't be attempting to figure out how to build shared libs on N
different platforms out there.

In this particular case, Sascha has indicated we can use "convenience"
libraries to solve our particular issue. I don't see any problem with that.
And yes, apps could go into .libs and fetch stuff, but it isn't ideal for
the reasons Sascha mentions; but he even provides a way to solve that if we
truly deem it to be a problem.
... in other words, we just have a few changes to make. That is a lot less
than tossing out libtool and redeveloping an alternate solution.


On Thu, Dec 21, 2000 at 11:12:52AM -0800, wrote:
> IMO, libtool is not a good choice for Apache.  I realize that it is very
> late in the game to say this, but many people have said it before.  The
> fact is that we have spent more time fighting libtool recently than we
> spend doing any other single thing.
> Everytime this argument comes up, we discuss it and although most of us
> agree that we severly dislike libtool, we end up using it anyway.  I think
> that is unacceptable.  I don't care if this delays the beta more, I want
> to solve this once and for all.
> So, I am asking for a simple vote.  If we vote to keep libtool, then
> somebody will also need to volunteer to keep it working, because I am sick
> of fighting our build environment just to be told I did it wrong.  If we
> vote to remove libtool, then I will volunteer to port the old build system
> to Apache 2.0.
> So, would people please vote about whether we want to keep libtool or not.
> My own vote is that we get rid of libtool.
> Ryan
> On Thu, 21 Dec 2000, Sascha Schumann wrote:
> > > Because the whole argument for using libtool for apr-util, was that we
> > > could use the .libs/ libraries very easily, and they will work for all
> > > programs, whether they use libtool or not.  If that isn't true, then we
> > > should stop using libtool all together, and go to the simpler setup that
> > > APR is currently using.
> > 
> >     For programs which don't use libtool directly, apr-util could
> >     add a mechanism to install itself into a temporary directory.
> >     The directory would contain the final shared and/or static
> >     libraries.  Otherwise, you rely on an implementation detail
> >     which can easily change.  For example, on certain platforms,
> >     libtool uses "_libs" instead of ".libs".
> > 
> >     This could also be used by Apache, if you dislike the
> >     two-step mechanism.
> > 
> >     - Sascha
> > 
> > 
> _______________________________________________________________________________
> Ryan Bloom               
> 406 29th St.
> San Francisco, CA 94131
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Greg Stein,

View raw message