httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Greg Ames <grega...@remulak.net>
Subject Re: httpd and utils should use static libraries
Date Wed, 30 Jan 2002 16:30:23 GMT
Aaron Bannert wrote:
> 
> 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
> ...

u da man!!
 
> 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.

Greg

Mime
View raw message