Aaron Bannert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Wed, Jan 30, 2002 at 12:00:23PM -0500, Rodent of Unusual Size wrote:
> > Aaron Bannert wrote:
> > >
> > > I've already added this for our various support binaries:
> > > --enable-static-htpasswd
> >
> > Having to explicitly specify this to make it happen is not on;
> > it needs to be the default. Having to specify for each individual
> > util is also bogus; there should be a switch, defaulting to
> > enabled, which provides a default setting for any
> > --{en,dis}able-static-* options that are omitted.
> ...
> > As long as our build process uses private copies of apr
> > and apr-util, linking httpd statically against them needs
> > to be the default case. When we go to using a system installation
> > of apr (i.e., a standalone library already installed, rather
> > than our private copy), I agree -- in such a case the default
> > should be to use the library dynamically. And at that point
> > the utils can be linked that way as well.
>
> I could definately go for a blanket --enable-static/--disable-static
> for our support modules, and even for httpd,
+1
Is there a reason on Unix why it shouldn't include httpd too?
Is it an issue of code getting dynamically loaded by some Apache
module that wants to talk to libapr.so and doesn't know how to use the
copy of apr statically linked to httpd?
(same for aprutil, expat)
> but I'm not convinced
> that it needs to be static by default.
I'm staying out of that argument :)
--
Jeff Trawick | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | PGP public key at web site:
http://www.geocities.com/SiliconValley/Park/9289/
Born in Roswell... married an alien...
