Hi,
I recently had a similar problem. What rules do you have for
compiling .c into .lo/.slo (or into .lo/.slo via .o)?
Does the makefile work correctly if you manually enter the filenames.
i.e:
C_FILES=merchant_mod.c ...
LO_FILES=merchange_mod.lo ...
SLO_FILES=merchant_mod.slo ...
-Andrew
On Thu, 2010-09-23 at 02:08 +0000, Mike Meyer wrote:
> I'm working on a module whose source is spread across multiple
> files. About the time I was adding the seventh file's .lo & .slo, I
> decided "The computer should be doing this", and did what I thought
> was a standard make hack:
>
> C_FILES=merchant_mod.c ...
> LO_FILES=${C_FILES:%.c=%.lo}
> SLO_FILES=${C_FILES:%.c=%.slo}
>
> in my Makefile, and
>
> mod_merchant.1a: ${SLO_FILES}
> $(SH_LINK) -rpath $(libexecdir) -modules -avoid-version ${LO_FILES}
>
> in the modules.mk.
>
> Trouble is, it doesn't run the compile step for the files, but goes
> straight to trying to link the .lo's together, which doesn't work all
> that well.
>
> I'm building against apache httpd 2.2 on Freebsd 8.1-RELEASE and
> OpenSolaris snv_134, as I need to run on both.
>
> Searching google doesn't turn up much on this, and the modules in the
> apache source tree all seem to just list all the files, rather than
> trying to generate them automatically.
>
> Anyone got a hint as to why this doesn't work, and what I should do to
> fix it? Or maybe another way to deal with modules with multiple source
> files that doesn't involve having to add each file suffix in three
> different places?
>
> Thanks,
> <mike
