On 03.01.2009 08:52, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
[ It's odd as I didn't get the email for this commit...anyway... ]

Author: rjung
Date: Fri Jan  2 17:01:56 2009
New Revision: 730882

URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=730882&view=rev
Log:
Only link libhttpd against pcre.

Modified:
    httpd/httpd/trunk/configure.in

Modified: httpd/httpd/trunk/configure.in
URL: 
http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/httpd/httpd/trunk/configure.in?rev=730882&r1=730881&r2=730882&view=diff
==============================================================================
--- httpd/httpd/trunk/configure.in (original)
+++ httpd/httpd/trunk/configure.in Fri Jan  2 17:01:56 2009
@@ -182,7 +182,8 @@
   fi
   AC_MSG_NOTICE([Using external PCRE library from $PCRE_CONFIG])
   APR_ADDTO(CFLAGS, [`$PCRE_CONFIG --cflags`])
-  APR_ADDTO(LIBS, [`$PCRE_CONFIG --libs`])
+  APR_ADDTO(LTLIBRARY_LIBADD, [`$PCRE_CONFIG --libs`])
+  APACHE_SUBST(LTLIBRARY_LIBADD)
else
   AC_MSG_ERROR([pcre-config for libpcre not found. PCRE is required and 
available from http://pcre.org/])
fi

This change busts my build because it tries to link a dynamic library
(pcre) against a static library (libmain).  You can't do that.
(jlibtool barfs on this.)  It is only legal to link static libraries
against other static libraries.  Please revert.  -- justin


There was no problem with usual libtool. I think it simply records the dependency in the *.la file (but didn't check that).

Does the following change fix it for MacOS?

Index: configure.in
===================================================================
--- configure.in        (revision 730882)
+++ configure.in        (working copy)
@@ -182,8 +182,7 @@
   fi
   AC_MSG_NOTICE([Using external PCRE library from $PCRE_CONFIG])
   APR_ADDTO(CFLAGS, [`$PCRE_CONFIG --cflags`])
-  APR_ADDTO(LTLIBRARY_LIBADD, [`$PCRE_CONFIG --libs`])
-  APACHE_SUBST(LTLIBRARY_LIBADD)
+  APR_ADDTO(HTTPD_LDFLAGS, [`$PCRE_CONFIG --libs`])
 else
AC_MSG_ERROR([pcre-config for libpcre not found. PCRE is required and available from http://pcre.org/])
 fi

If so, that's better for several reasons.

Regards,

Rainer

Reply via email to