|
Home > Archive > Apache Server configuration support > November 2006 > configuring apache compiling modules into the program
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
| Author |
configuring apache compiling modules into the program
|
|
|
| Is there a way to compile modules like mod_access and mod_auth into the
Apache binary?
| |
| Davide Bianchi 2006-11-20, 1:18 pm |
| On 2006-11-20, d-fan <rafel.coyle@pfshouston.com> wrote:
> Is there a way to compile modules like mod_access and mod_auth into the
> Apache binary?
Sure, just don't use the '--include-shared' keywords, see the
documentation on compiling Apache.
Davide
--
"A copy of Windows 95 and 4x4 MB of SIMMs, please."
| |
|
|
Davide Bianchi wrote:
> On 2006-11-20, d-fan <rafel.coyle@pfshouston.com> wrote:
>
> Sure, just don't use the '--include-shared' keywords, see the
> documentation on compiling Apache.
>
> Davide
>
> --
> "A copy of Windows 95 and 4x4 MB of SIMMs, please."
If read the documentation is the module configuration
"--enable-MODULE=shared" included in the configure only or compile or
both such as "$ CC="pgcc" CFLAGS="-O2" \
../configure --prefix=/sw/pkg/apache \
--enable-rewrite=shared \
--enable-speling=shared" . This looks like a compiler statement to me
because it includes the "CC='pgcc' CFLAGS='-02' " statement. Thanks
for your help. These instructions are not as clear if you haven't done
this before.
| |
| Davide Bianchi 2006-11-21, 7:26 am |
| On 2006-11-21, d-fan <rafel.coyle@pfshouston.com> wrote:
> --enable-speling=shared" . This looks like a compiler statement
Well, yes, they are compiler statement, after all, you're talking about
*compiling a module*, so you are going to issue different compiler
statement (what did you expected?).
It would be interesting to know why you want to compile it 'statically'
instead of as a module (aka: dynamic).
Davide
--
It's all GNU to me.
-- From a Slashdot.org post
| |
|
| Davide Bianchi wrote:
> On 2006-11-21, d-fan <rafel.coyle@pfshouston.com> wrote:
>
> Well, yes, they are compiler statement, after all, you're talking about
> *compiling a module*, so you are going to issue different compiler
> statement (what did you expected?).
>
> It would be interesting to know why you want to compile it 'statically'
> instead of as a module (aka: dynamic).
>
> Davide
>
> --
> It's all GNU to me.
> -- From a Slashdot.org post
My desire to compile these modules/libs statically is a result of my
lack of knowledge and the lack of clarity between the configure and the
compile mechanism used as well as the fac that 3 versions of apache
have been compiles on this machine and so I have modules everywhere.
It seams that all compiler directives should be passed to the configure
script and that the make process will just compile what has been
included. Correct me if I am wrong on that point. So one problem for
me is that this process has been unclear. As far as the modules
everywhere I will find another way to take care of that by using the
correct prefix statement with configure script.
| |
| Davide Bianchi 2006-11-23, 7:36 am |
| On 2006-11-23, d-fan <rafel.coyle@pfshouston.com> wrote:
> My desire to compile these modules/libs statically is a result of my
> lack of knowledge
That's why there is documentation.
> and the lack of clarity between the configure and the
> compile mechanism
If for 'configure' you mean the ./configure command, that's compile
mechanism too.
> have been compiles on this machine and so I have modules everywhere.
Well, get rid of the unused ones. That has nothing to do with Apache on
his on, is just sloppy sysadminning.
> It seams that all compiler directives should be passed to the configure
> script and that the make process will just compile what has been
> included.
Correct. The 'configure' is just part of the compilation.
Davide
--
Bill Gates to his broker:
"You idiot, I said $150 million on SNAPPLE!!!"
|
|
|
|
|