httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "William A. Rowe, Jr." <wr...@covalent.net>
Subject Re: httpd and utils should use static libraries
Date Wed, 30 Jan 2002 19:20:49 GMT
From: "Aaron Bannert" <aaron@clove.org>
Sent: Wednesday, January 30, 2002 9:43 AM


> On Tue, Jan 29, 2002 at 09:00:06PM -0500, Rodent of Unusual Size wrote:
> > httpd, htpasswd, htdigest, and the other main applications need
> > to be built with static libraries.  In other words, they must
> > not be linked against libapr.so and friends.
> > 
> > Why?  Because otherwise we make life difficult for users, and
> > make violation of the Principle of Least Astonishment a virtual
> > certainty.
> 
> I've already added this for our various support binaries:
> --enable-static-htpasswd

I believe that should probably be the _default_, and the converse
(something like --enable-dynamic-htpasswd) the alternative.

I think that was what Ken was getting at.

This is especially true on my OSX box - after make install, the DYLD path
info is not updated, so all binaries are broken.  apachectl at least
wraps those variables for httpd.


> I see no reason why we couldn't do the same for httpd. I agree that it
> may make life easier for binbuild users, but I'm totally against doing
> this always, if not merely for the fact that we're trying to make APR
> a standalone library.

Certainly would agree there.  httpd has dozens of modules loading anyways,
and benefits greatly from the apachectl configuration of the DYLD path,
etc.  Even linking httpd static causes headaches for dynamic modules, when
you factor libapr/libaprutil back into the equation.

Bill


Mime
View raw message