On Jan 9, 2007, at 6:31 AM, Justin Johnson wrote:
> /svn/static/build/httpd-2.2.3/srclib/apr-util>./configure \
> > --prefix=$base_dir/apr-util-httpd \
> > --enable-static=yes \
> > --enable-shared=no \
> > --with-ldap=$base_dir \
> > --with-apr=$base_dir/apr-httpd
Did
On 1/8/07, Sander Temme <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Jan 5, 2007, at 6:42 AM, Justin Johnson wrote:
> My new problem is that apr-util has a problem with a statically linked
> ldap. See below.
>
> /svn/static/build/httpd-2.2.3/srclib/apr-util>./configure \
> > --prefix=$base_dir/apr-util-
On Jan 5, 2007, at 6:42 AM, Justin Johnson wrote:
My new problem is that apr-util has a problem with a statically linked
ldap. See below.
/svn/static/build/httpd-2.2.3/srclib/apr-util>./configure \
> --prefix=$base_dir/apr-util-httpd \
> --enable-static=yes \
> --enable-shared=
Well I'm getting further than I was before. It seems my main problem
with LDAP not being recognized is that I was specifying
--with-ldap=yes instead of --with-ldap=/path/to/ldap/basedir. So
after changing that I found that I need to first build apr and
apr-util, as documented at
http://httpd.apa
On 1/4/07, Justin Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I tried adding those options but still get the same error; "could not
find an LDAP library".
> I don't know why you're not finding ldap. Do you have a library of
> the name libldap.a (or whatever suffix AIX uses, I forget) in that /
> svn/lib
Try adding --enable-shared=no and --enable-static=yes to your httpd
configure line. As you can see when you trawl the configure output,
APR is still built with shared libraries. Also, you'll want httpd
itself to be statically linked against the gcc stuff. Enabling a
module as static only applie
Vidiot wrote:
>> You don't know that - AIX commonly uses .a for dynamically loadable modules.
>> Some mean SOBs like myself force our builds to generate .so in spite of IBM's
>> absurd naming conventions.
>
> Really? Using .a names for dynamic libraries would drive me insane.
> At least BSD, Sola
>You don't know that - AIX commonly uses .a for dynamically loadable modules.
>Some mean SOBs like myself force our builds to generate .so in spite of IBM's
>absurd naming conventions.
Really? Using .a names for dynamic libraries would drive me insane.
At least BSD, Solaris and Linux get it right
Vidiot wrote:
>> The issue here is that the library Apache is dependent on is installed
>> with gcc, so the only way for me to get it is to install the gcc RPM.
>> Do you keep gcc libraries on your boxes?
>>
>> One such library dependency is
>> /opt/freeware/lib/gcc/powerpc-ibm-aix5.3.0.0/4.0.0/lib
Try adding --enable-shared=no and --enable-static=yes to your httpd
configure line. As you can see when you trawl the configure output,
APR is still built with shared libraries. Also, you'll want httpd
itself to be statically linked against the gcc stuff. Enabling a
module as static only applie
On Jan 3, 2007, at 10:46 AM, Justin Johnson wrote:
svnadm /svn/build/httpd-2.2.3>./configure \
Try adding --enable-shared=no and --enable-static=yes to your httpd
configure line. As you can see when you trawl the configure output,
APR is still built with shared libraries. Also, you'll w
>The issue here is that the library Apache is dependent on is installed
>with gcc, so the only way for me to get it is to install the gcc RPM.
>Do you keep gcc libraries on your boxes?
>
>One such library dependency is
>/opt/freeware/lib/gcc/powerpc-ibm-aix5.3.0.0/4.0.0/libgcc_s.a.
Sorry, my examp
The issue here is that the library Apache is dependent on is installed
with gcc, so the only way for me to get it is to install the gcc RPM.
Do you keep gcc libraries on your boxes?
One such library dependency is
/opt/freeware/lib/gcc/powerpc-ibm-aix5.3.0.0/4.0.0/libgcc_s.a.
On 1/3/07, Vidiot <[
>The libraries are a part of gcc, and there is a policy at my work that
>prevents compilers from being installed on production boxes. I might
>be able to get them to install gcc but remove the actually compiler
>executable, but I'm not sure and I wanted to figure out what the
>correct way to do th
The libraries are a part of gcc, and there is a policy at my work that
prevents compilers from being installed on production boxes. I might
be able to get them to install gcc but remove the actually compiler
executable, but I'm not sure and I wanted to figure out what the
correct way to do this i
>I have two AIX 5.2 servers; one for development and one for
>production. My development box has various GNU tools installed such
>as gcc, autoconf, libtool, binutils, etc, and no IBM compiler. I can
>successfully build (not-statically) on this box (with gcc obviously).
>My production box doesn't
I have two AIX 5.2 servers; one for development and one for
production. My development box has various GNU tools installed such
as gcc, autoconf, libtool, binutils, etc, and no IBM compiler. I can
successfully build (not-statically) on this box (with gcc obviously).
My production box doesn't hav
17 matches
Mail list logo
