Joe, Thanks for ur reply.
Let me clarify something....When I said I didnt get any helpful responses, I meant I didn't get any answers as to what is wrong with gcc and why the module was behaving the way it was. Anyways....point taken.....will use apxs for compiling the module. Subra On Dec 14, 2007 12:12 PM, Joe Lewis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Subra A Narayanan wrote: > > I didnt receive any helpful responses to that posting thats why I am > trying > > to use apxs. > > > > You DID get helpful responses - I was one of those responders who said > to use apxs. (We pointed you to the tool because there are too many > changes across systems, platforms, etc, that it is faster, more > efficient, and better quality to use a tool that also makes the end > result more portable - go figure). > > > Would you care to take a look at this issue => > > > http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/httpd-modules-dev/200711.mbox/[EMAIL > PROTECTED] > > > > We need no more discussion on that - use apxs. If you need a Makefile, > use the apxs tool in your Makefile. (It IS possible, after all.) For > example, Makefile rules might look like : > > mod_test.so: > apxs -c mod_test.so > cp .libs/mod_test.so path/to/mod_test.so > > install: > apxs -n mod_test -i mod_test.la > > That is how I have done all of my modules. It's easier to type "make > install" rather than "apxs -i -a -c mod_test.c". If you think you need > help in your makefile, go to google, and type in "makefile". Just > copying a makefile from another package seriously limits your > capabilities. > > Joe > -- > Joseph Lewis <http://sharktooth.org/> > "Divide the fire, and you will sooner put it out." - Publius Syrus >
