On Tue, 13 May 2008 09:07:03 +0100 Joe Orton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, May 12, 2008 at 04:10:14PM -0500, William Rowe wrote: > > Like Roy, I'm frustrated with aprutil's dependency madness, and I'm > > working right now on abstracting out apu-util into a loadable > > module. At this point a --with-ldap build on linux FC8 is > > producing this pile of crap as bindings for those applications with > > no use for ldap; > > That is a 2.0 discussion not a 1.3 discussion. (and see msgid > [EMAIL PROTECTED]) > > For 1.x, libaprutil must continue to contain functions which use > symbols defined by the LDAP library; Only if built --with-ldap (to state the bleedin' obvious). > changing each function call into > an indirected dynamic-symbol-lookup-and-function-call would be an > unmaintainable hack. But that's not the proposal on the table! Noone is suggesting changing any function call, API or even ABI. Merely how the code is loaded. > Since downstream users must also continue to be > linked against those LDAP libraries by virtue of linking against > libaprutil, it would also be a redundant hack. That is a misfeature of the current build procedure. I don't see why it can't be changed. Or indeed left as a compile-time option to users, whether to build LDAP and other modules as static or dynamic (and in the latter case, LDAP support becomes a runtime choice). Dynamic building will be a tremendous aid to anyone wanting to support multiple LDAP libraries, too. We have some open bugs concerning LDAP that could easily be down to static linking and less-than-100%-compatible library versions. -- Nick Kew Application Development with Apache - the Apache Modules Book http://www.apachetutor.org/
