httpd-2.0.18 build error

["Gonyou, Austin" <au...@coremetrics.com>]

Looks like this is caused by configuring with ssl support. Any ideas here,
aside from not compiling with SSL?

--------------begin error--------------
/bin/sh /home/austin/work/build/httpd-2_0_18/srclib/apr/libtool --silent
--mode=link gcc  -g -O2 -pthread    -D_REENTRANT
-DAP_HAVE_DESIGNATED_INITIALIZER   -I.
-I/home/austin/work/build/httpd-2_0_18/os/unix
-I/home/austin/work/build/httpd-2_0_18/server/mpm/threaded
-I/home/austin/work/build/httpd-2_0_18/modules/http
-I/home/austin/work/build/httpd-2_0_18/include
-I/home/austin/work/build/httpd-2_0_18/srclib/apr/include
-I/home/austin/work/build/httpd-2_0_18/srclib/apr-util/include
-I../openssl-0.9.6//include -export-dynamic    -o htpasswd htpasswd.lo
../srclib/apr-util/libaprutil.la ../srclib/apr/libapr.la -lnsl -lnsl -lm
-lcrypt -lnsl -ldl -lssl -lcrypto
/home/austin/work/build/httpd-2_0_18/srclib/apr-util/xml/expat/lib/libexpat.
la
htpasswd.o: In function `main':
/home/austin/work/build/httpd-2_0_18/support/htpasswd.c:599: the use of
`tmpnam' is dangerous, better use `mkstemp'
htpasswd.o: In function `mkrecord':
/home/austin/work/build/httpd-2_0_18/support/htpasswd.c:235: undefined
reference to `apr_sha1_base64'
collect2: ld returned 1 exit status
make[2]: *** [htpasswd] Error 1
make[2]: Leaving directory `/work/build/httpd-2_0_18/support'
make[1]: *** [all-recursive] Error 1
make[1]: Leaving directory `/work/build/httpd-2_0_18/support'
make: *** [all-recursive] Error 1
--------------end error-------------------

-- 
Austin Gonyou
Systems Architect, CCNA
Coremetrics, Inc.
Phone: 512-796-9023
email: austin@coremetrics.com 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Gonyou, Austin [mailto:austin@coremetrics.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, June 13, 2001 2:01 PM
> To: 'new-httpd@apache.org'
> Subject: RE: Apache 2.0 final ?
> 
> 
> Aye Aye. They are up.
> 
> -- 
> Austin Gonyou
> Systems Architect, CCNA
> Coremetrics, Inc.
> Phone: 512-796-9023
> email: austin@coremetrics.com 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Bill Stoddard [mailto:bill@wstoddard.com]
> > Sent: Wednesday, June 13, 2001 12:19 PM
> > To: new-httpd@apache.org
> > Subject: Re: Apache 2.0 final ?
> > 
> > 
> > Check now. They are up.
> > 
> > Bill
> > 
> > ----- Original Message ----- 
> > From: "Gonyou, Austin" <au...@coremetrics.com>
> > To: <ne...@apache.org>
> > Sent: Wednesday, June 13, 2001 11:59 AM
> > Subject: RE: Apache 2.0 final ?
> > 
> > 
> > > Where the heck is 2.0.18 for download? CVS?
> > > 
> > > -- 
> > > Austin Gonyou
> > > Systems Architect, CCNA
> > > Coremetrics, Inc.
> > > Phone: 512-796-9023
> > > email: austin@coremetrics.com 
> > > 
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: Ian Holsman [mailto:IanH@cnet.com]
> > > > Sent: Wednesday, June 13, 2001 10:32 AM
> > > > To: 'new-httpd@apache.org'
> > > > Subject: RE: Apache 2.0 final ?
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > Hi Daniel,
> > > > we are already devleoping custom modules for 2.0,
> > > > ok.. sometimes we get a bit burnt and have to go and change
> > > > some function names when something gets pulled into the APR,
> > > > 
> > > > but in my experience the change is to a function name, 
> the concept
> > > > stays the same, and is a low-risk change.
> > > > 
> > > > I sugest you grab the 2.0.19 release (when it gets 
> pushed to BETA)
> > > > and use that as a baseline, subscribe to the CVS 
> mailing list and
> > > > take a note when you see comments like 'changed function 
> > > > name' or 'moved to APR'
> > > > 
> > > > ..Ian
> > > > 
> > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > From: Padwa, Daniel [mailto:daniel.padwa@gs.com]
> > > > > Sent: Wednesday, June 13, 2001 6:42 AM
> > > > > To: 'new-httpd@apache.org'
> > > > > Subject: RE: Apache 2.0 final ?
> > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > > I think people like him are asking: when is the fiddling 
> > > > > done, and people
> > > > > > have a program they can start to incorporate into their 
> > > > > operating system
> > > > > > releases, deploy for production customers, etc?  While 
> > > > > we're still working
> > > > > > on low-level issues like pools/sms in APR and fixing other 
> > > > > big performance
> > > > > > issues, we're not there yet.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Another spin on the same question: when do the core 
> > > > > developers (you know who
> > > > > you are) think that the internal APIs have stabilized enough 
> > > > > so that effort
> > > > > expended porting home-grown modules won't need to be thrown 
> > > > > away when 2.0
> > > > > settles down?
> > > > > 
> > > > > Some of us (I don't have enough data to say "many") can't put 
> > > > > the server
> > > > > through heavy burn-in without local modules, and can't 
> > > > > justify porting those
> > > > > to a not-settled set of core APIs.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Or did I miss the announcement that we had passed this point? 
> > > > >   It doesn't
> > > > > need to be an unbreakable promise, just some guidance.
> > > > > 
> > > > 
> > > 
> > 
>