On Mon, Dec 04, 2000 at 11:42:06PM +0100, Branko Cibej wrote:
> Greg Stein wrote:
>...
> > Sure, we'd get it to work on Linux and *BSD. Possily a Solaris and AIX box.
> > But the rest? Eek.
>
> You're an optimist. AIX already gets a few eeks from me. Non-ELF
> platforms are mostly goblins. :-)
O
Greg Stein wrote:
I think we're going to have to / want to use libtool there, too. libtool
already does it correctly for each platform, and I would *not* be confident
in the slightest of us getting it right. It wouldn't be "a simple shell
script"... I know that much.
+1 on using libtool. I have the
On Sat, Dec 02, 2000 at 02:59:03PM -0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>...
> > Nope. The .so files are standard .so files. Anybody can use and link against
> > them, just like every other .so file.
>
> Okay, my comments came from reading the libtool manual,
Hey... nobody can dis you for reading the
> > The problem is that a libtool .so file, AFAIK, is not the same as a
> > regular .so file.
>
> It is the same as a .so file:
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] apr-util]$ file .libs/libaprutil.so.0.0.0
> .libs/libaprutil.so.0.0.0: ELF 32-bit LSB shared object, Intel 80386, version
> 1, not stripped
> [EM
On Sat, Dec 02, 2000 at 02:09:29PM -0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>...
> > Well, unlike Apache, we need to be able to create a shared library for
> > consumption by other programs. (Apache only needs dynamic-load modules) To
> > build a shared library, libtool is the best available option.
> >
>
> > > Note that it uses autoconf and libtool. It isn't complicated enough for
> > > automake, so I didn't bother. The build stuff is also greatly simplified
> > > over those in APR and Apache. A single build/rules.mk and teeny makefiles
> > > throughout.
> >
> > I would really prefer to not use li
