new question: is this a problem? I first had --enable-module=so and changed that to --enable-modules=so
Both are giving a warning message: checking for APR... reconfig configuring package in srclib/apr now configure: WARNING: unrecognized options: --enable-modules, --enable-mods-shared checking build system type... powerpc-ibm-aix6.1.3.0 checking host system type... powerpc-ibm-aix6.1.3.0 checking target system type... powerpc-ibm-aix6.1.3.0 Configuring APR library Platform: powerpc-ibm-aix6.1.3.0 checking for working mkdir -p... yes APR Version: 0.9.17 On Sun, Dec 20, 2009 at 1:51 PM, Michael Felt <[email protected]> wrote: > 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] >> > >
