I have considered that, but until I better understand how configure, make and libtool are suppossed to work together, I prefer leaving things, as much as possible, as they are.
Could it be a problem that I have "make installed" apr and apr-util for httpd-2.2? This is another aspect of the different versions of apache I do not really understand - specifically - which version(s) of apr are supported/compatible. At the moment I am thinking of just copying this file (and perhaps others as I come to them) to the location "demanded". What I consider unfortunate, and again unsure of where the exact problem lies - or I would try to work out a patch - is that the make install worked fine before the buildconf - but the wrong file extensions for the modules (.a rather than .so) are generated, where after buildconf - the correct files are made, but make install is broken. On Sun, Dec 20, 2009 at 4:31 AM, Eric Covener <[email protected]> wrote: > On 12/19/09, Michael Felt <[email protected]> wrote: > > cc: 1501-228 input file /usr/local/apache2/lib/libapr-0.so > > You need to backtrack to the "make install" of the bundled APR, as > this is what apr-util is complaining about. You might find it > easier to build against an installed, rather than a bundled, APR to > simplify/separate. > > -- > Eric Covener > [email protected] >
