On Wed, Aug 8, 2012 at 2:47 AM, Guenter Knauf <fua...@apache.org> wrote: > Am 08.08.2012 07:39, schrieb Kaspar Brand: > >> On 06.08.2012 22:08, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote: >>> >>> On 8/5/2012 10:10 PM, Kaspar Brand wrote: >>>> >>>> On 05.08.2012 14:38, Guenter Knauf wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Am 05.08.2012 10:10, schrieb Kaspar Brand: >>>>>> >>>>>> 1) use --with-ssl-builddir for linking with the static OpenSSL >>>>>> libraries >>>>>> in that directory (and ignore --with-ssl in this case) >>>>> >>>>> what about splitting into two arguments: >>>>> --with-ssl-include= >>>>> --with-ssl-lib= >>>>> this would be equal to what many other configure also use ... >>>> >>>> >>>> That's an option, yes, although the way the proposed option would work >>>> doesn't mirror the typical case of --with-xyz-include/--with-xyz-lib >>>> (i.e., add those args with -I and -L): "--with-ssl-builddir" forces >>>> mod_ssl to always be linked with the static libraries in that directory. >>>> Maybe --with-ssl-static-libdir would be a more appropriate name? >>> >>> >>> Why not simply consume the installed openssl.pc? >> >> >> In this particular case we're talking about using an OpenSSL build >> directory, i.e. the generated openssl.pc is sitting in a temporary >> location in that build tree (and when used, would output incorrect >> includedir/libdir locations). > > probably a dumb question and I'm missing something, but: > why is this necessary at all? Given someone wants to build/link against a > development version of OpenSSL why should he ommit the last step of > installing OpenSSL to a separate location?
Time taken to iterate in development is an important determiner of productivity. Having to do an install for every change introduces significant delay. It also has a tendency to make debugging hard. > Wouldnt everything work fine > using --with-ssl= and building OpenSSL static-only + installing to a > separate development location? > > Gün. > >