Trying to build mod_python on OpenBSD

[Woodchuck]

On Tue, 19 Sep 2006, edgar mortiz wrote:

> hi guys I'm trying to build mod_python on OpenBSD 3.7 with the
> following configuration.
> 
> Python 2.4 (source build) --disabled-share

Well, this looks like it suppressed making a shareable
libpython... 

> Apache 2.0.59 --enable-so
> mod_python 3.2.10 --with-apxs
> 
> I was able to get as far as the make part on mod_python but whenver i
> do make install mod_python breaks I've been looking at how the build
> goes and the only think that looks like it's not cooperating is this
> part
> 
> >
> > *** Warning: linker path does not have real file for library -lpython2.4.

So WTF does it mean by a "real file"???  Bah, user-friendliness.

> > *** I have the capability to make that library automatically link in when
> > *** you link to this library.  But I can only do this if you have a
> > *** shared version of the library, which you do not appear to have

So that explains the first part of the error message.  It took four lines
to say
	"libpython2.4.so.x" not found.

> > *** because I did check the linker path looking for a file starting

Maybe the linker path  (part of LDFLAGS, like -L/usr/local/foo/bar) is
wrong?  If you have a libpython..so, check this in the Makefile.  Is
your path correct?

> > *** with libpython2.4 and none of the candidates passed a file format test

What were the candidates??  Just growling at how user-friendliness
suppresses information.

> > *** using a regex pattern. Last file checked:
> > /usr/local/lib/python2.4/config/libpython2.4.a

OK, here's the static lib.  Apparently it didn't like it.

I'd track down the "file format test" see what it is, and why your
libpython2.4.a fails it.  (A curse on "user friendliness" -- I suspect
the error message knows what's wrong but doesn't want to confuse you
with facts.)

> > *** Warning: libtool could not satisfy all declared inter-library
> > *** dependencies of module mod_python.  Therefore, libtool will create
> > *** a static module, that should work as long as the dlopening
> > *** application is linked with the -dlopen flag.

Did it make the static module?  If so, does it work?

> looks like libtool doesn't like my python source brewed, or something else
> 
> any suggestions would be gladly appreciated.

I don't have python installed, so this is about as far as I can get.

So why did you make python without a shared lib in the first place?

Dave