httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Aaron Bannert <aa...@clove.org>
Subject Re: httpd and utils should use static libraries
Date Wed, 30 Jan 2002 16:42:25 GMT
On Wed, Jan 30, 2002 at 11:30:23AM -0500, Greg Ames wrote:
  
> > I see no reason why we couldn't do the same for httpd. I agree that it
> > may make life easier for binbuild users, 
> 
> that would be most excellent
> 
> >                                            but I'm totally against doing
> > this always, if not merely for the fact that we're trying to make APR
> > a standalone library.
> 
> agreed, but until apr and apr-util (and maybe expat??) are installed in "well
> known" locations, we should at least provide an httpd configure option to link
> the libraries statically.  Otherwise, our users are going to have to dick around
> with LD_LIBRARY_PATH etc, if somebody ever tries to make a backup copy of the
> install directory for example.  Yeah, apachectl now does this for you if you do
> a binbuild.  But if you move the install directory manually or try to execute
> httpd directly with a binbuild, you're hosed. 
> 
> I tried sticking --disable-shared for apr and apr-util in httpd's configure.in. 
> That doesn't work any more if you try to build the modules shared.  When libtool
> tries to link the first module, it tells ld to link the .lo file which contains
> the word "timestamp".  I suspect we're picking up a static build rule for the
> modules as well as the libraries.

I think all you have to do is pass -static to the libtool link command
for httpd. I'll be able to fool around with this later today if nobody
beats me to it.

Also, it looks like the two newer support binaries htdbm and checkgid don't
have this option, I'll add that in a minute.

-aaron

Mime
View raw message