Mailing-List: contact dev-help@httpd.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@httpd.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: domain of rainer.jung@kippdata.de
 designates 195.227.30.149 as permitted sender)
Message-ID: <4E12D8A1.1050603@kippdata.de>
Date: Tue, 05 Jul 2011 11:25:53 +0200
From: Rainer Jung <rainer.jung@kippdata.de>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 5.1;
 rv:5.0) Gecko/20110624 Thunderbird/5.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: dev@httpd.apache.org
Subject: Re: RUNPATH for module dependencies on Unix/Linux
References: <4E120F85.8000104@kippdata.de> <20110705074627.GA3429@redhat.com>
 <4E12C79C.6070101@kippdata.de>
In-Reply-To: <4E12C79C.6070101@kippdata.de>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

> I will think about a good way, how users can pass additional LDADD
> flags. Putting the "-R ..." into the LDFLAGS seems to be too heavy,
> because then the RPATH of every module etc. will contain the given
> directory. The real problematic cases are only mod_lua and in rare
> circumstances (you want to link against a non-standard zlib)
> mod_deflate. It might be enough to use APR_ADDTO() instead of direct
> assignment or APR_SETVAR() when setting the LDADD variables. I'll
> experiment.

Using APR_ADDTO() for the MOD_XXX_LDADD worked nicely, so I used that
solution to allow users to easily prefix something to our LDADD detection.

> So would you also remove the current "ap_platform_runtime_link_flag"
> hack, which we only use for Solaris and which adds "-R ..."
> unconditional? Or should we stick, because although it is not right it
> is what did work in the past (for Solaris)?

Thsi question still remains open for me.

Regards,

Rainer