Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
On Wed, Jan 04, 2006 at 08:54:01AM +0000, Joe Orton wrote:
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.
Try to create a static mod_deflate that links against -lz. GNU libtool
doesn't like that combination at all. (It just silently drops the -lz.)
It's the one major problem I keep running into with the 2.2 series. I keep
having to add -lz to AP_LIBS or make mod_deflate shared. -- justin
That's the gut of it... first you aren't creating a STATIC mod_deflate, ever.
You're either creating a loadable mod_deflate module, or you are creating httpd
and it needs to bind to any of mod_deflate's dependencies as well as it's own.
Also consider OpenSSL itself, which now has ties into libz.so, either dynamic,
static (bad - because you now clash with mod_deflate), or even load on demand
(the 'ZLIB_DYNAMIC' design). I'm discovering ZLIB_DYNAMIC isn't exactly what
I wanted. I'm also discovering that the 'right thing' is probably for libssl.so
to be dynamically linked to libcrypto.so, but of course the openssl build system
is, uhm, unique :) And goes to prove the complexity of the problem you identify
--- trying to replace libtool.
More thoughts later, just wanted to record these few.
Bill
