Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2002 22:43:43 +0000 From: Mark Murray <mark@grondar.za> To: Dag-Erling Smorgrav <des@ofug.org> Cc: Ruslan Ermilov <ru@FreeBSD.org>, Mark Murray <markm@FreeBSD.org>, cvs-committers@FreeBSD.org, cvs-all@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/share/mk bsd.libnames.mk Message-ID: <200201222243.g0MMhht62061@grimreaper.grondar.org> In-Reply-To: <xzpvgdukowf.fsf@flood.ping.uio.no> ; from Dag-Erling Smorgrav <des@ofug.org> "22 Jan 2002 23:21:36 %2B0100." References: <xzpvgdukowf.fsf@flood.ping.uio.no>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> Mark Murray <mark@grondar.za> writes: > > The counter-aurgument is a libtelnet-style thing where you make the > > libraries but do not install them. Then, telnet can link against > > libtelnet.a and be done with it. > > That's exactly what I don't understand: why link libssh statically > into ssh, sshd etc? I can't see that we save anything by doing that - > quite to the contrary, we increase the size of these binaries as well > as their memory footprint when more than one of them is running at the > same time. Not counting PAM, we have nine binaries in the system that > link with libssh (scp, sftp, ssh, ssh-add, ssh-agent, ssh-keygen, > ssh-keyscan, sshd, sftp-server). Zigactly! > BTW, I just noticed that the attached patch is necessary (as a > supplement to my commit) to make dependency tracking work correctly. Perfectly sensible, IMO. I haven't tested this, but it looks sane to me. If it works, I'd say, commit it! (Realistically, lets give Ruslan a chance to respond) M > Index: secure/Makefile.inc > Index: share/mk/bsd.libnames.mk -- o Mark Murray \_ FreeBSD Services Limited O.\_ Warning: this .sig is umop ap!sdn To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe cvs-all" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200201222243.g0MMhht62061>