Hi folks,
Thanks for the replies... I'm on OS X 10.5.8 fwiw.
otool confirms that the libphp5.so file that apache is complaining about
seems ok with libxml...
otool -L /usr/libexec/apache2/libphp5.so
/usr/local/lib/libxml2.2.dylib (compatibility version 10.0.0, current
version 10.8.0)
And I can run the /usr/local/bin/php just fine...
Ahh but I found an older version of libxml in /usr/lib and the new version
is in /usr/local/lib... so I'm guessing httpd is loading the older version
from /usr/lib. Now to see if I can get it to quit that...
Warmly,
Josh
On Fri, Mar 16, 2012 at 12:52 AM, Mark Rowe <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> On 2012-03-15, at 23:41, Daniel Veillard <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > On Thu, Mar 15, 2012 at 05:48:01PM -0700, Joshua Alexander wrote:
> >> Hi folks,
> >>
> >> I recently built libxml2 2.7.8 on OS X and now apache won't start saying
> >> "libphp5.so requires version 10.0.0 or later, but libxml2.2.dylib
> provides
> >> version 9.0.0"
> >>
> >> That doesn't make sense to me, so I'm curious, is what apache's saying
> >> accurate... or what "version" is libxml2 2.7.8 supposed to provide?
> >
> > Smells like Apple builds incremented the dylib and you need to mimic
> > that on your own builds (but I have no idea how !)
>
> The increase in library version number from 9 to 10 happened when
> libxml2's version number went from v2.6.32 to v2.7.0. The library version
> number is derived from the -version-info argument passed to libtool,
> computed in configure as:
>
> LIBXML_VERSION_INFO=`expr $LIBXML_MAJOR_VERSION +
> $LIBXML_MINOR_VERSION`:$LIBXML_MICRO_VERSION:$LIBXML_MINOR_VERSION
>
> For instance, libxml2 2.6.32 passed -version-info 8:32:6 to libtool.
> libxml2 2.7.8 passes -version-info 9:8:7. From my reading of <
> http://sourceware.org/autobook/autobook/autobook_91.html> the version
> info that libxml2 is passing doesn't really correspond to how it is
> intended to be used. What's worse, though, is that the manner in which
> libtool maps the version information on to the Mach-O concepts of library
> versioning doesn't really agree with the autobook explanation of library
> versioning either (e.g., the "age" isn't taken in to consideration when
> generating the compatibility version). This means that even if libxml2 were
> setting -version-info correctly that the compatibility version of the
> library on OS X would change unexpectedly when the "current" field of the
> libtool version info was incremented.
>
> In other words, the entire situation is gross.
>
> - Mark
>
>
_______________________________________________
xml mailing list, project page http://xmlsoft.org/
[email protected]
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/xml
