Skip to main content.
home | support | download

Back to List Archive

Re: Problem with make, ld & libxml2

From: Bill Moseley <moseley(at)not-real.hank.org>
Date: Tue Mar 04 2003 - 16:11:09 GMT
On Tue, 4 Mar 2003, Andrew Lord wrote:

> I was hoping to avoid the larger sized perl module, as per the suggestion 
> issued when doing 'perl Makefile.PL'.  Perhaps this is not a major issue.  Is 
> the perl module *much* larger/slower when swish has been compiled 
> --with-libxml2 ?  

It's somewhat larger, but nothing I've ever worried about.  I'd think it
would be shared code so at most there would only be one copy in memory.

One of the reasons for the API redesign in the dev version was to separate
the indexing and searching code.  SWISH::API does not load libxml2 or
most of the swish-e indexing code.


> Also, I thought I'd try to keep the installation as simple as possible, given 
> that the first attempt to get swish to compile --with-libxml2, failed 
> (results not shown).  Then, as with the second attempt, ld was complaining 
> about not being able to find -lxml2 even though it was located at 
> '/usr/lib/libxml2.so.2.4.10'.  I would have thought that was a fairly 
> standard place for ld to look for it.  I wonder if I assume too much ?

The configure script runs the command xml2-config to find the "prefix"
where libxml2 was installed.  If it can't find that program in the $PATH
then it assumes libxml2 is not installed.

moseley@bumby:~/swish-e/src$ xml2-config --prefix
/usr

moseley@mardy:~ > xml2-config --prefix
/usr/local

> The remote server runs the bash shell.  Looking at the swish documentation, it 
> says that when using a bourne shell, the correct way to specifiy path to 
> libxml2 would be:
> 	"LD_RUN_PATH=/home/virtual/sitex/fst/var/www/html/libxml2  make" 
> 
> I don't know much about shells.  Is bash a bourne shell ?

bash - GNU Bourne-Again SHell


$ FOO=bar bash -c 'env | grep FOO'
FOO=bar

> > Will you be indexing on that machine or only searching?
> 
> Yes, I was assuming that I would be doing the indexing on that remote machine. 
> I thought it better to assume that any index created on my machine would not 
> be operable on that machine but this may be an overly pessimistic assumption.  

It should be portable.  The index is not portable between 32 and 64 bit
machine, IIRC.

-- 
Bill Moseley moseley@hank.org
Received on Tue Mar 4 16:11:36 2003