httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jim Jagielski <...@jaguNET.com>
Subject Re: [PATCH] Allow mod_cache to be build/loaded as DSO
Date Tue, 07 Sep 2004 19:33:47 GMT
>
> it doesn't have to be mod_cache
>
> and it doesn't have to be built with apxs
>
> it just has to be built as a DSO with gcc, and it can reference
> libgcc.a symbols that weren't included in httpd and/or weren't
> exported by httpd
>

True 'nuff... I was simply trying to indicate a quick
and dirty way to recreate the issue and show the
dependency. If you do build mod_cache at the same
time however, the libgcc dependency is "hidden"
(it still exists and, in most cases, the required
library mojo happens during the link phase so
that it gets pulled in correctly at runtime).

>
> a critical point in deciding how to address this is that it isn't just
> that line of code; maybe it is just that line of code with today's
> checkout of CVS with your current level of gcc and your configure
> options, but it is different line(s) of code for somebody else and
> their checkout and their gcc and their configure options
>
> so changing that line of code is no solution except maybe as your own
> local modification which you can maintain until your gcc or your
> checkout or your compile/configure options change sufficiently to add
> a dependency elsewhere; given that, how can that source code change be
> checked into CVS?

Well... I've confirmed that with that change, we remove
that libgcc dependency for the singular case of the
code not requiring __floatdidf :)

Yes, I agree that the issue is deeper and that doing
these line-by-line hacks will likely be more
trouble than they are worth (eventually) but what
disturbed me (as mentioned) was the "yeah, so
what" attitude. Kind of defeats the whole purpose
of httpd being licensed the way it is, and
allowing companies like RedHat and Covalent and
IBM to redistribute it if the resulting code
results in dependencies that circumvent the
desire of LICENSE.

I'm not gung-ho about the patch; I am gung-ho
about the *reason* for the patch. ;)


Mime
View raw message