Question: Why the #@&* would you want apache with php5 on your router?
Answer: There are a few configuration tools around for things like xmail and asterisk that I wanted to play around with.. that happen to be written in php5. I also wanted a small wiki - and they either required php5 or rewriting enabled (which it isn't currently). On Wed, 12 Mar 2008 11:43:49 am I wrote: > These Patches to the buildroot-ng add a new target to Apache > (apache-dynamic) and to libapr (libapr-dynamic) that allows Apache to have > dynamic loaded modules. > > Currently I have the modules all being distributed with apache-dynamic - > but these could be distributed as separate packages. > > The size of the dynamic apache is about half that of the static version - > which has got to be good... and if the modules are split out -then that > would be good for footprint. Thoughts people? Should I rewrite/simplify the patch to eliminate the static version of apache? I'm sure there were reasons to do it with static linked modules.. but the fact that it's bigger seems to work against it. Do people want to see all the modules broken out into separate packages before this patch would be accepted? > > I have also added a target for php5 that allows php5 to be loaded as an > apache module. (php5-apache) > > The main issue with doing this is that it requires two separate streams of > libraries built into the staging area - and when compiling - we need to be > able to switch between the two. This was really a pain to get around - and it would simplify thing greatly if the static builds weren't required. Apart from anything it mucks up the Make process as there has to be a make clean in the rules to avoid using old configuration. Possibly a better way to have different variants (I copied this from the php5 Makefile btw) is to have an entire copy of the build tree for each variant. It still doesn't help with libraries where downstream components built on the libraries need to pick up different versions of configuration/headers as is the case here (with the libapr and apache dependancy) > OptWare has apache set up as modules - and I largely coppied that format, > including their patch for apxs.in. > How dow we acknowledge borrowed patches like this? > > Also a new patch file for apache is required, the patches follow the new > file. (couldn't get svn to create a diff for me on that!) > I like having a local mail relay so I can disable direct sending from other computers within the network/ from the wlan. //.ichael Geddes _______________________________________________ openwrt-devel mailing list openwrt-devel@lists.openwrt.org http://lists.openwrt.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openwrt-devel
