Has anyone done a static mod_dav_svn build *ever*?

[Max Bowsher <ma...@ukf.net>]

I was reviewing old issues in the tracker and realized something...

IIUC, building a static apache module has been broken for over 3 years now 
(!)
Am I right, or has anyone actually done a static apache build recently?

If I have not misinterpreted the configure code, and this truly is the case, 
then I think we should consider ripping out the residual code supporting 
this option.

Max.


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org

Re: Has anyone done a static mod_dav_svn build *ever*?

[kf...@collab.net]

"Max Bowsher" <ma...@ukf.net> writes:
> It would not be too complicated to tweak the Makefile to proceed, but
> since the brokenness has been allowed to persist for 3 years without a
> fix, I wonder if anyone is using this feature.

Since the workaround is pretty straightforward, maybe we should check
on users@ before damaging the static-build support further...


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org

Re: Has anyone done a static mod_dav_svn build *ever*?

[Max Bowsher <ma...@ukf.net>]

kfogel@collab.net wrote:
> "Max Bowsher" <ma...@ukf.net> writes:
>> I was reviewing old issues in the tracker and realized something...
>>
>> IIUC, building a static apache module has been broken for over 3 years
>> now (!)
>> Am I right, or has anyone actually done a static apache build recently?
>>
>> If I have not misinterpreted the configure code, and this truly is the
>> case, then I think we should consider ripping out the residual code
>> supporting this option.
>
> What exactly is broken about static mod_dav_svn builds?  Is it the
> sort of thing that enterprising people might have worked around?  If
> so, we might want to check on users@ to see if anyone's getting use
> out of static builds, before ripping out what support we do have.

LINK_APACHE_MOD contains "-rpath $(APACHE_LIBEXECDIR)", but when building 
statically, APACHE_LIBEXECDIR is not given a value, thus causing the -rpath 
option to take what ever happens to be next in the command line as its 
value, which, not being an absolute path, causes libtool to die with the 
complaint that rpaths must be absolute. Guaranteed build error, I think.

It would not be too complicated to tweak the Makefile to proceed, but since 
the brokenness has been allowed to persist for 3 years without a fix, I 
wonder if anyone is using this feature.

Max.


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org

Re: Has anyone done a static mod_dav_svn build *ever*?

[kf...@collab.net]

"Max Bowsher" <ma...@ukf.net> writes:
> I was reviewing old issues in the tracker and realized something...
> 
> IIUC, building a static apache module has been broken for over 3 years
> now (!)
> Am I right, or has anyone actually done a static apache build recently?
> 
> If I have not misinterpreted the configure code, and this truly is the
> case, then I think we should consider ripping out the residual code
> supporting this option.

What exactly is broken about static mod_dav_svn builds?  Is it the
sort of thing that enterprising people might have worked around?  If
so, we might want to check on users@ to see if anyone's getting use
out of static builds, before ripping out what support we do have.

Thoughts?

-Karl

-- 
www.collab.net  <>  CollabNet  |  Distributed Development On Demand

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org