httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Gonyou, Austin" <aus...@coremetrics.com>
Subject RE: httpd-2.0.18 build error
Date Wed, 13 Jun 2001 22:26:52 GMT
Why is apr_sha1_base64 unreferenced in htpasswd.c?

-- 
Austin Gonyou
Systems Architect, CCNA
Coremetrics, Inc.
Phone: 512-796-9023
email: austin@coremetrics.com 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Gonyou, Austin [mailto:austin@coremetrics.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, June 13, 2001 3:23 PM
> To: 'new-httpd@apache.org'
> Subject: RE: httpd-2.0.18 build error
> 
> 
> I recompiled again with no ssl support same error. Looks like 
> htpasswd.c is
> in need of something it doesn't have. I'm not sure why it's 
> upset. Any help
> is appreciated.
> 
> -- 
> Austin Gonyou
> Systems Architect, CCNA
> Coremetrics, Inc.
> Phone: 512-796-9023
> email: austin@coremetrics.com 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Gonyou, Austin [mailto:austin@coremetrics.com]
> > Sent: Wednesday, June 13, 2001 2:48 PM
> > To: 'new-httpd@apache.org'
> > Subject: httpd-2.0.18 build error
> > 
> > 
> > Looks like this is caused by configuring with ssl support. 
> > Any ideas here,
> > aside from not compiling with SSL?
> > 
> > --------------begin error--------------
> > /bin/sh 
> > /home/austin/work/build/httpd-2_0_18/srclib/apr/libtool --silent
> > --mode=link gcc  -g -O2 -pthread    -D_REENTRANT
> > -DAP_HAVE_DESIGNATED_INITIALIZER   -I.
> > -I/home/austin/work/build/httpd-2_0_18/os/unix
> > -I/home/austin/work/build/httpd-2_0_18/server/mpm/threaded
> > -I/home/austin/work/build/httpd-2_0_18/modules/http
> > -I/home/austin/work/build/httpd-2_0_18/include
> > -I/home/austin/work/build/httpd-2_0_18/srclib/apr/include
> > -I/home/austin/work/build/httpd-2_0_18/srclib/apr-util/include
> > -I../openssl-0.9.6//include -export-dynamic    -o htpasswd 
> htpasswd.lo
> > ../srclib/apr-util/libaprutil.la ../srclib/apr/libapr.la 
> > -lnsl -lnsl -lm
> > -lcrypt -lnsl -ldl -lssl -lcrypto
> > /home/austin/work/build/httpd-2_0_18/srclib/apr-util/xml/expat
> > /lib/libexpat.
> > la
> > htpasswd.o: In function `main':
> > /home/austin/work/build/httpd-2_0_18/support/htpasswd.c:599: 
> > the use of
> > `tmpnam' is dangerous, better use `mkstemp'
> > htpasswd.o: In function `mkrecord':
> > 
> /home/austin/work/build/httpd-2_0_18/support/htpasswd.c:235: undefined
> > reference to `apr_sha1_base64'
> > collect2: ld returned 1 exit status
> > make[2]: *** [htpasswd] Error 1
> > make[2]: Leaving directory `/work/build/httpd-2_0_18/support'
> > make[1]: *** [all-recursive] Error 1
> > make[1]: Leaving directory `/work/build/httpd-2_0_18/support'
> > make: *** [all-recursive] Error 1
> > --------------end error-------------------
> > 
> > -- 
> > Austin Gonyou
> > Systems Architect, CCNA
> > Coremetrics, Inc.
> > Phone: 512-796-9023
> > email: austin@coremetrics.com 
> > 
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Gonyou, Austin [mailto:austin@coremetrics.com]
> > > Sent: Wednesday, June 13, 2001 2:01 PM
> > > To: 'new-httpd@apache.org'
> > > Subject: RE: Apache 2.0 final ?
> > > 
> > > 
> > > Aye Aye. They are up.
> > > 
> > > -- 
> > > Austin Gonyou
> > > Systems Architect, CCNA
> > > Coremetrics, Inc.
> > > Phone: 512-796-9023
> > > email: austin@coremetrics.com 
> > > 
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: Bill Stoddard [mailto:bill@wstoddard.com]
> > > > Sent: Wednesday, June 13, 2001 12:19 PM
> > > > To: new-httpd@apache.org
> > > > Subject: Re: Apache 2.0 final ?
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > Check now. They are up.
> > > > 
> > > > Bill
> > > > 
> > > > ----- Original Message ----- 
> > > > From: "Gonyou, Austin" <austin@coremetrics.com>
> > > > To: <new-httpd@apache.org>
> > > > Sent: Wednesday, June 13, 2001 11:59 AM
> > > > Subject: RE: Apache 2.0 final ?
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > > Where the heck is 2.0.18 for download? CVS?
> > > > > 
> > > > > -- 
> > > > > Austin Gonyou
> > > > > Systems Architect, CCNA
> > > > > Coremetrics, Inc.
> > > > > Phone: 512-796-9023
> > > > > email: austin@coremetrics.com 
> > > > > 
> > > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > > From: Ian Holsman [mailto:IanH@cnet.com]
> > > > > > Sent: Wednesday, June 13, 2001 10:32 AM
> > > > > > To: 'new-httpd@apache.org'
> > > > > > Subject: RE: Apache 2.0 final ?
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Hi Daniel,
> > > > > > we are already devleoping custom modules for 2.0,
> > > > > > ok.. sometimes we get a bit burnt and have to go and change
> > > > > > some function names when something gets pulled into the APR,
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > but in my experience the change is to a function name, 
> > > the concept
> > > > > > stays the same, and is a low-risk change.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > I sugest you grab the 2.0.19 release (when it gets 
> > > pushed to BETA)
> > > > > > and use that as a baseline, subscribe to the CVS 
> > > mailing list and
> > > > > > take a note when you see comments like 'changed function 
> > > > > > name' or 'moved to APR'
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > ..Ian
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > > > From: Padwa, Daniel [mailto:daniel.padwa@gs.com]
> > > > > > > Sent: Wednesday, June 13, 2001 6:42 AM
> > > > > > > To: 'new-httpd@apache.org'
> > > > > > > Subject: RE: Apache 2.0 final ?
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > I think people like him are asking: when is the 
> fiddling 
> > > > > > > done, and people
> > > > > > > > have a program they can start to incorporate into
their 
> > > > > > > operating system
> > > > > > > > releases, deploy for production customers, etc?  While

> > > > > > > we're still working
> > > > > > > > on low-level issues like pools/sms in APR and 
> > fixing other 
> > > > > > > big performance
> > > > > > > > issues, we're not there yet.
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > Another spin on the same question: when do the core 
> > > > > > > developers (you know who
> > > > > > > you are) think that the internal APIs have 
> > stabilized enough 
> > > > > > > so that effort
> > > > > > > expended porting home-grown modules won't need to 
> be thrown 
> > > > > > > away when 2.0
> > > > > > > settles down?
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > Some of us (I don't have enough data to say "many") 
> > can't put 
> > > > > > > the server
> > > > > > > through heavy burn-in without local modules, and can't

> > > > > > > justify porting those
> > > > > > > to a not-settled set of core APIs.
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > Or did I miss the announcement that we had passed 
> > this point? 
> > > > > > >   It doesn't
> > > > > > > need to be an unbreakable promise, just some guidance.
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > 
> > > 
> > 
> 

Mime
View raw message