DO NOT REPLY TO THIS EMAIL, BUT PLEASE POST YOUR BUG· RELATED COMMENTS THROUGH THE WEB INTERFACE AVAILABLE AT <http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42556>. ANY REPLY MADE TO THIS MESSAGE WILL NOT BE COLLECTED AND· INSERTED IN THE BUG DATABASE.
http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42556 ------- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-06-04 13:37 ------- (In reply to comment #7) > Here's the pldd of a core file: > > pldd core.httpd.19712.0 > core 'core.httpd.19712.0' of 19712: /opt/adnapache/bin/httpd -k start > /opt/adnapache/lib/libaprutil-1.so.0.2.8 > /opt/adnapache/lib/libldap-2.3.so.0.2.20 > /opt/adnapache/lib/liblber-2.3.so.0.2.20 > /usr/lib/libsldap.so.1 > /usr/lib/libldap.so.5 > I created a SysV package of apache and installed it also on a Solaris 8 and 10 > host which is configured as an LDAP client. On these two system it works fine. > Might it be that there is a bug in the way Solaris 9 handles dynamic loading > of > libraries? Maybe. But in general I agree with Eric that having one binary linked against two different ldap SDKs is waiting for an accident to happen. So it might make sense to compile httpd against SUN's ldap SDK (to be honest I am not sure if this is possible as I am not an ldap guru) -- Configure bugmail: http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the assignee for the bug, or are watching the assignee. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
