linking apache. I'm wondering if the above problem is a consequence of us explicitly setting linker syntax and not letting autotools do their job properly? Anyway, the patch is there if someone wants to see if it helps with this issue as well.
I think the issue is that mod_ssl as a DSO has to have a special set of linker flags just for *it* rather than relying on the original set of libraries (i.e. pull in OpenSSL). The proper solution to this would be to allow a module to explicitly have its own compiler, linker, etc. flags. (mod_deflate as a DSO could benefit if only it linked against libz.)
It's a slightly more generic problem than just mod_ssl.
* session cache store should be pluggable
I'd like to speak with the person who's behind this, as I'm waiting for
(Pardon me while I go off on a tangent...)
Note that there really isn't a single person who is responsible for mod_ssl. The only person who may claim that is Ralf and he hasn't been involved for years. All of us on this list are implicitly responsible. Some people are more involved than others though - Madhu and DougM have been beneficial to keeping it running though (among others that I have forgotten right now - sorry!) - but the point of adding mod_ssl to our tree was so that it could be group-maintained rather than a specific individual. So, I wouldn't go look for a specific person to talk to. Whomever that person would be should be reading this list. Just start having a conversation about what you'd like to see happen on this list and people will magically start to chime in. And, keep submitting patches about what you'd like to see fixed - it's the surefire way of getting our attention. (And, simply repost if you don't hear anything in a week...)
* the shmcb code should just align its memory segment rather than jumping through all the "safe" memcpy and memset hoops
I wrote shmcb and I don't think the person who wrote this quite understands why this "jumping through hoops" is done. Trying to align all the relevant data will cost more than just a few wasted bytes of storage, and I respectfully suggest that the "safe" accessors (which aren't speed-critical) would be easier to maintain. Again, I'm available to bash these ideas out if anyone's interested.
It's probably under the idea that we'd save a few cycles and make the code more understandable if we relied upon alignment. In fact, I believe the second argument is the more compelling one. I find the safe calls a tremendous difficulty in understanding the shmcb code (which, AIUI, is broken right now). -- justin
