Ryan Bloom wrote:
Didn't we solve this problem by adding EXTRA_LIBS and EXTRA_LDFLAGS? I
haven't looked at the code, but I remember (from years past), that
we didn't want people to set CFLAGS, LIBS, LDFLAGS, etc for some
reason. Instead, we asked people to set EXTRA_CFLAGS, etc and we
picked those up.
I am relative new to apr, so not sure about history and no one pointed
me to EXTRA_xxx. :-)
Include CFLAGS may not be appropriate, but I think LDFLAGS/LIBS should
be OK although I don't feel very comfortable with it. Would some one
please enlighten me a bit on this issue?
Have a quick look at those EXTRA flags, don't know how to use those. Ideas?
Cheers,
Henry
I could be mis-remembering though.
Ryan
On 4/28/06, Henry Jen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Here is the new patch.
Cheers,
Henry
On 4/9/06, William A. Rowe, Jr. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Henry Jen wrote:
> >
> > will not have the -R flag in the Makefile.
>
> Your patch is invalid because we need to proxy the whole accumulated
> LDFLAGS off to the client who's trying to compile against apr[-util].
> Fixing Makefile isn't enough, LDFLAGS must be 'sticky' within the
> accumulated apr-1-config/apu-1-config syntax.
>
> Please revisit your patch and determine where your desired flags are
> being dumped by autoconf, and I'd be happy to commit a patch that
> ensures those user-given flags percolate into our APRUTIL_LDFLAGS
> throughout the configuration, as opposed to committing a bandaid.
>
> Yours,
>
> Bill
>
--
Ryan Bloom
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
