httpd-users mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Asaf Dalet <asaf.da...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [users@httpd] apr_off_t mismatch
Date Thu, 24 Nov 2011 05:41:24 GMT
i am trying to ask this again:
i supply an apache 2.2 module to my customers. naturally, i need to build
my module for each OS, cpu architecture & bit scheme. So, if my customer
has Apache 2.2 on solaris sparc 32 bit - that's what i need to build.

however, from what i just discovered, there's another factor - LFS support.
My module needs to be compiled with the LFS enabled or disabled - according
to the specific apache of the specific customer. The problem is that i
can't know what LFS support the apache was compiled with.

This really shouts "bug" to me, but i would really like to know - who's bug
and how to fix it. for example, if the packages of apache 2.2.0 with APR
1.2.2 on sunfreeware.com have a bug that was later fixed - then i can tell
my customer to upgrade to a later version.

???
On Mon, Nov 21, 2011 at 11:44 PM, Asaf Dalet <asaf.dalet@gmail.com> wrote:

> this means that apache modules for 2.2.0 32 bits, on solaris 9 are not
> compatible across differemt ./configure options.
>
> which actually means that if i want to check if my module will run on a
> given apache - i cannot do it (there's no way to know a priori the size of
> apr_off_t which apache was compiled with). am i right?
>
>
>
> by any chance, does anyone know what are the ./configure options that
> control the size of apr_off_t, (if there are any)?
>
>
>
> thanks
>
> asaf
>
> On Mon, Nov 21, 2011 at 7:23 PM, William A. Rowe Jr. <wrowe@rowe-clan.net>wrote:
>
>> On 11/21/2011 9:48 AM, Asaf Dalet wrote:
>>
>>> Hi all,
>>> some interesting news:
>>> I downloaded apr-1.2.2-sol9-sparc-local from sunfreeware.com <
>>> http://sunfreeware.com> and
>>>
>>> installed it.
>>> the file apr/include/apr-1/apr.h contains this line:
>>> typedef  long           apr_off_t;
>>>
>>> does this mean apr 1.2.2 does not support LFS or is it some bug in this
>>> precompiled APR?
>>> appreciate any comment
>>>
>>
>> It means either 1) the builder deliberately forced this behavior
>> through options to ./configure, or 2) apr fails to detect that
>> LFS is available in the builder's environment.  I suspect 1.
>>
>>
>

Mime
View raw message