Aaron Bannert wrote: > > On Tue, Jan 29, 2002 at 09:00:06PM -0500, Rodent of Unusual Size wrote: > > httpd, htpasswd, htdigest, and the other main applications need > > to be built with static libraries. In other words, they must > > not be linked against libapr.so and friends. > > > > Why? Because otherwise we make life difficult for users, and > > make violation of the Principle of Least Astonishment a virtual > > certainty. > > I've already added this for our various support binaries: > --enable-static-htpasswd > ...
u da man!! > I see no reason why we couldn't do the same for httpd. I agree that it > may make life easier for binbuild users, that would be most excellent > but I'm totally against doing > this always, if not merely for the fact that we're trying to make APR > a standalone library. agreed, but until apr and apr-util (and maybe expat??) are installed in "well known" locations, we should at least provide an httpd configure option to link the libraries statically. Otherwise, our users are going to have to dick around with LD_LIBRARY_PATH etc, if somebody ever tries to make a backup copy of the install directory for example. Yeah, apachectl now does this for you if you do a binbuild. But if you move the install directory manually or try to execute httpd directly with a binbuild, you're hosed. I tried sticking --disable-shared for apr and apr-util in httpd's configure.in. That doesn't work any more if you try to build the modules shared. When libtool tries to link the first module, it tells ld to link the .lo file which contains the word "timestamp". I suspect we're picking up a static build rule for the modules as well as the libraries. Greg
