On Tue, Jan 03, 2006 at 03:18:48PM -0800, Justin Erenkrantz wrote: > --On January 3, 2006 11:09:34 PM +0000 Nick Kew <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >That is of course resolved by LoadFile /lib/libz.so, which is what I > >contend should be standard practice. So when another module > >relies on libz, there's no side effect that manifests mysteriously > >according to whether and when mod_deflate is loaded. > > I strongly disagree. Forcing the user to manually track all of the library > dependencies is insane. If someone wants to shoot themselves in the foot, > fine - you can do it. But, we shouldn't force everyone to fit your > preferred model because you want a few less libraries.
Totally agreed. > Again, there are substantial libtool issues that come into play that limit > what we can realistically do. I don't see any here. 2.2.x links only mod_deflate against -lz and only mod_ssl against $(SSL_LIBS). The 2.0.x way only linking dependent libraries into httpd is broken for the not unexpected case of having a static OpenSSL build or a static libz, etc. joe
