On 24 Sep 2002, Jeff Trawick wrote:
> Dirk-Willem van Gulik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > On Tue, 24 Sep 2002, Sander Striker wrote:
> >
> > > Nope. It is intented to remove any leading directory components.
> >
> > Hmm - I do a normal install
> >
> > cd apache-2.0.40
> > ./configure --prefix=....../a2
> > make && make install
> >
> > And then try to install (on Solaris) a module as a .so:
> >
> > ../a2/bin/apxs -i -n mod_foo mod_foo.so
>
> unless something has changed very recently, apxs with Apache 2.0 is
> intended to be passed the name of the .la file, not the .so file
>
> in general, the module author will know where the .la file was built
> by apxs -c but will not know the exact name of the .so file (which
> could be .libs/mod_foo.so or .libs/libmod_foo.so or
> .libs/libmod_foo.sl or who knows what else)
Ok - I get it - so that means that a sysadmin would need to keep/move both
files around as he or she installs some extra binary modules on a machine.
Is there not a way this could be reduced to just one file - perhaps even
comping the .la information inside the mod_foo.so; and then have some
query utility which at run time link in the SO and then extracts this
info. All we seem to use is the dlname string ?
Dw
