> -Original Message-
> From: John P. Dodge [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Mittwoch, 31. August 2005 15:38
> To: Apache Users Mailing List
> Subject: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Compilinf mods_ssl Shared/static
>
>
> Never saw any response to this question:
>
> Is there a consensus on compiling
On Wed, 31 Aug 2005, Boyle Owen wrote:
> >
> > Is there a consensus on compiling mod_ssl as shared or static?
>
> It depends on your application which is the more appropriate. The two
> possibilities are not provided just to add a bit of spice to life, they're
> there because in some situations
> -Original Message-
> From: John P. Dodge [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Mittwoch, 31. August 2005 15:52
> To: users@httpd.apache.org
> Subject: RE: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Compilinf mods_ssl Shared/static
>
>
> On Wed, 31 Aug 2005, Boyle Owen wrote:
>
> >
On Wed, 31 Aug 2005, Boyle Owen wrote:
> > -Original Message-
> > From: John P. Dodge [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Sent: Mittwoch, 31. August 2005 15:52
> > To: users@httpd.apache.org
> > Subject: RE: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Compilinf mods_ssl Shared/static
&
You probably link to libcrypto.so and libssl.so dynamically anyways, so
there is truly no measurable difference.
And if you link static to libcrypto.a/libssl.a, you may find that you
cannot load mod_ssl or other modules (e.g. mod_auth_ldap) which bind
directly or indirectly to libcrypto.so/libssl
