Mailing-List: contact dev-help@httpd.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@httpd.apache.org
Received-SPF: neutral (nike.apache.org: local policy)
Message-ID: <50244863.3050105@rowe-clan.net>
Date: Thu, 09 Aug 2012 16:31:47 -0700
From: "William A. Rowe Jr." <wrowe@rowe-clan.net>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64;
 rv:14.0) Gecko/20120713 Thunderbird/14.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: dev@httpd.apache.org
Subject: Re: Linking mod_ssl with a specific OpenSSL version
References: <20120706124110.B3B0423888EA@eris.apache.org>
 <4FF94526.4090103@velox.ch> <501E2A62.4090406@velox.ch>
 <502038D4.20401@kippdata.de> <50220079.7000400@velox.ch>
 <20120808160353.GA14521@redhat.com>
 <CAG5KPzxZ6_aS9xZkr0bUvsPbyxDiWpF-j3uO6gYDSUnMMHznVg@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: 
 <CAG5KPzxZ6_aS9xZkr0bUvsPbyxDiWpF-j3uO6gYDSUnMMHznVg@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

On 8/8/2012 8:56 PM, Ben Laurie wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 8, 2012 at 5:03 PM, Joe Orton <jorton@redhat.com> wrote:
>> On Wed, Aug 08, 2012 at 08:00:25AM +0200, Kaspar Brand wrote:
>>> My thinking was that people should explicitly tell configure that they
>>> want to link with the libs in a build directory (so that they don't
>>> "accidentally" use a directory which might only temporarily exist -
>>> that's also the primary reason for preferring the static over the shared
>>> libs from that dir).
>>
>> This all seems totally crazy to me.  Why are we adding complexity to the
>> httpd build system so openssl devs can skip typing the " install" part
>> of running "make install" when testing against modified versions of
>> OpenSSL?  Joe
> 
> IIRC, the issue is that it doesn't build correctly even if you do that
> (to a non-standard location - and clearly installing to a standard
> location is nuts).

I have no issues installing to a non-standard location, and with a very
few hacks, can even eliminate the -R compiled-in search paths and create
a build entirely managed by LD_LIBRARY_PATH.

It would help if you explained better what bug you see in handling the
--with-ssl arguement, and I think we could resolve this easily.  If the
issue is that openssl.pc is not processed correctly by httpd or not
created correctly by openssl.org, then we can fix either defect.