libaprutil

[David Reid <dr...@jetnet.co.uk>]

Why are we building this as a shared library when apr gets built as a
static?  I ask as the inclusion of libaprutil.so is what's causing me grief
at present in getting a built/runnable httpd.

To give a bit more background the library is built but BeOS seems to have
some strange problems actually using shared libraries that I'm fighting with
at present.  Once I've won the fight then this may not be an issue, but it
does seem a bit strange that presently apr is static but aprutil is shared.

david

Re: libaprutil

[Greg Stein <gs...@lyra.org>]

Yes, I'd scream. Big.

Just pass --disable-shared to the libtool config. It will build the thing as
static at that point. This is easily done by passing the flag to Apache's
./configure (it will be replicated down to the sub-config). The problem with
this is that the Apache modules will then be built static. Whether that is a
problem or not... dunno. The underlying issue here is that we end up
building Apache as all-static or all-shared; probably not a big deal. It
would be quite complicated to create a scheme for passing different sets of
libtool config flags to the subdirs (apr and aprutil). Hmm. Actually, the
best way to do this is allow for the Apache config to *point* to an
*installed* APR and APRUTIL, rather than assuming they're in srclib/. The
user could then build/install them as they wish, then config/build Apache.

The reason it is built as shared is because libtool will build both shared
and static by default. The only reason APR doesn't build as shared is
because I haven't gone in there and libtool-ized the thing. APR needs to be
able to produce shared libraries, and the best way to do that is via
libtool.

Cheers,
-g

On Fri, Dec 15, 2000 at 07:52:00PM -0000, David Reid wrote:
> So will people really kick and scream if I change the library built in
> apr-util to a .a instead of a .la?  This will then allow Apache to build on
> BeOS (tested) (and might also get OS/2 working - Brian?)  It also brings
> apr-util in line with APR's build strategy...
> 
> david
> 
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "David Reid" <dr...@jetnet.co.uk>
> To: "APR Development List" <de...@apr.apache.org>
> Sent: Friday, December 15, 2000 2:00 PM
> Subject: libaprutil
> 
> 
> > Why are we building this as a shared library when apr gets built as a
> > static?  I ask as the inclusion of libaprutil.so is what's causing me
> grief
> > at present in getting a built/runnable httpd.
> >
> > To give a bit more background the library is built but BeOS seems to have
> > some strange problems actually using shared libraries that I'm fighting
> with
> > at present.  Once I've won the fight then this may not be an issue, but it
> > does seem a bit strange that presently apr is static but aprutil is
> shared.
> >
> > david
> >
> >

-- 
Greg Stein, http://www.lyra.org/

Re: libaprutil

[David Reid <dr...@jetnet.co.uk>]

So will people really kick and scream if I change the library built in
apr-util to a .a instead of a .la?  This will then allow Apache to build on
BeOS (tested) (and might also get OS/2 working - Brian?)  It also brings
apr-util in line with APR's build strategy...

david


----- Original Message -----
From: "David Reid" <dr...@jetnet.co.uk>
To: "APR Development List" <de...@apr.apache.org>
Sent: Friday, December 15, 2000 2:00 PM
Subject: libaprutil


> Why are we building this as a shared library when apr gets built as a
> static?  I ask as the inclusion of libaprutil.so is what's causing me
grief
> at present in getting a built/runnable httpd.
>
> To give a bit more background the library is built but BeOS seems to have
> some strange problems actually using shared libraries that I'm fighting
with
> at present.  Once I've won the fight then this may not be an issue, but it
> does seem a bit strange that presently apr is static but aprutil is
shared.
>
> david
>
>