Justin Erenkrantz wrote: > > On Wed, Jan 30, 2002 at 01:20:49PM -0600, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote: > > Certainly would agree there. httpd has dozens of modules loading anyways, > > and benefits greatly from the apachectl configuration of the DYLD path, > > etc. Even linking httpd static causes headaches for dynamic modules, when > > you factor libapr/libaprutil back into the equation. > > Which is why I think forcing static linking of APR is not what we > want to do.
I'm agnostic on the default, like Jeff. > Here's a question: how many other open-source projects allow moving > the binaries around once they are compiled and installed? There's one very important open source project that lets you move binaries: Apache 1.3 built with binbuild. > An approach that I would be in favor of is twofold: > > - Allow explicit configure-time options to disable shared libraries > (This can be used by third-parties, but shared libraries are still > used by default.) +1 on the options, punt on the default. > - Provide a libtool wrapper that handles the relinking of the paths > if you move your httpd binaries around. I don't think we could reasonably expect binbuilds to use this approach. Every binbuild installation is essentially moving the install directory. We'd have to ship all the object files and archives, plus users would need all the tools that libtool invokes for relinking. Not a problem on Linux, but what about OSes where you have to pay for compilers? I think this would stop many Apache 1.3 binary users from migrating to 2.0. If we do a little more work to enhance the configure options for disabling shared libraries, that seems like the simplest solution for binbuild. Greg
