httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Justin Erenkrantz <>
Subject Re: httpd and utils should use static libraries
Date Wed, 30 Jan 2002 19:44:27 GMT
On Wed, Jan 30, 2002 at 01:20:49PM -0600, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
> 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.

Which is why I think forcing static linking of APR is not what we
want to do.

Here's a question: how many other open-source projects allow moving
the binaries around once they are compiled and installed?  Especially
those that are centered around libtool?

Note that I don't have an answer to this.

An approach that I would be in favor of is twofold:

- Allow explicit configure-time options to disable shared libraries
  (This can be used by third-parties, but shared libraries are still
   used by default.)

- Provide a libtool wrapper that handles the relinking of the paths
  if you move your httpd binaries around.
  (If we must do this, this is my preferred solution.  This is also
   what we came up with a few weeks ago when we discussed this issue
   as listed under STATUS for binbuilds.  This allows dynamic
   libraries and pushes this back to the libtool people who can do
   this better than we can.)
My $.02.  -- justin

View raw message