On 8/8/2012 9:03 AM, Joe Orton wrote: > On Wed, Aug 08, 2012 at 08:00:25AM +0200, Kaspar Brand wrote: >> My thinking was that people should explicitly tell configure that they >> want to link with the libs in a build directory (so that they don't >> "accidentally" use a directory which might only temporarily exist - >> that's also the primary reason for preferring the static over the shared >> libs from that dir). > > This all seems totally crazy to me. Why are we adding complexity to the > httpd build system so openssl devs can skip typing the " install" part > of running "make install" when testing against modified versions of > OpenSSL? Joe
I concur. If lib devs wish to use a build tree, it should not be that hard to properly craft the right symlinks for an 'install in place' model used for rapid development. I agree with Ben that this is desireable, but httpd is not the place to solve it. openssl.pc can describe such an environment in a useful manner for developers and solve the entire issue in the lib package.
