Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-new-httpd-archive@apache.org Received: (qmail 25969 invoked by uid 500); 21 Dec 2000 19:03:27 -0000 Mailing-List: contact new-httpd-help@apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk Reply-To: new-httpd@apache.org list-help: list-unsubscribe: list-post: Delivered-To: mailing list new-httpd@apache.org Received: (qmail 25886 invoked from network); 21 Dec 2000 19:03:23 -0000 Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2000 19:59:29 +0100 (CET) From: Sascha Schumann X-Sender: To: Cc: Subject: Re: cvs commit: httpd-2.0 configure.in In-Reply-To: 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 > 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