httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Dirk-Willem van Gulik <>
Subject Re: - basename confusion
Date Tue, 24 Sep 2002 13:16:42 GMT

On 24 Sep 2002, Jeff Trawick wrote:

> > Ok - I get it - so that means that a sysadmin would need to keep/move both
> > files around as he or she installs some extra binary modules on a
> > machine.
> or tar up the .la file and the .libs subdirectory?

Well - just fishing the .so file out of .libs and filing it
together with the .la file should be enough right ?

> or install it once and keep the resulting .so file?

Well - but in order to reproduce it a year hence - we'd need
to keep both an .la and a .so.

> > Is there not a way this could be reduced to just one file - perhaps even
> > comping the .la information inside the; and then have some
> > query utility which at run time link in the SO and then extracts this
> > info. All we seem to use is the dlname string ?
> or modify apxs to reverse-engineer the libtool mysteries at compile
> time instead of link time, so that the compile results in .so and
> nothing else

Hmm - but then we'd not really be using libtool anymore.

I.e. we're redcing it almost to a 'knowledge base' which just knows which
'-shared -fpic' flags to specify to cc/ld on various platforms. Even 'odd'
ones like MacOS X and NeXt are not that different.

But then again - it would be very nice to just shunt things around as a
signle file; give it to apxs and be done with it.

(And for now we propably need to tell axps to give us a decent error if
you try to let it operate on a .la file without the .so or vice versa).


View raw message