Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2006 14:34:26 +0000 (GMT) From: Robert Watson <rwatson@FreeBSD.org> To: "Christian S.J. Peron" <csjp@FreeBSD.org> Cc: Perforce Change Reviews <perforce@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: PERFORCE change 91489 for review Message-ID: <20060210143257.I22680@fledge.watson.org> In-Reply-To: <200602100414.k1A4EP9p068264@repoman.freebsd.org> References: <200602100414.k1A4EP9p068264@repoman.freebsd.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Fri, 10 Feb 2006, Christian S.J. Peron wrote: > http://perforce.freebsd.org/chv.cgi?CH=91489 > > Change 91489 by csjp@csjp_xor on 2006/02/10 04:13:39 > > Conditionally compile audit support into login(1) unless somebody has > specified the NO_AUDIT flag in /etc/make.conf > > Affected files ... > > .. //depot/projects/trustedbsd/audit3/usr.bin/login/Makefile#8 edit > .. //depot/projects/trustedbsd/audit3/usr.bin/login/login_audit.c#9 edit > > Differences ... > > ==== //depot/projects/trustedbsd/audit3/usr.bin/login/Makefile#8 (text+ko) ==== > > @@ -7,10 +7,15 @@ > DPADD= ${LIBUTIL} ${LIBPAM} > LDADD= -lutil ${MINUSLPAM} -lbsm Do you also need to conditionalize linking against libbsm here? And I notice we're missing a ${LIBBSM} entry on the DPADD line also. > +.if !defined(NO_AUDIT) > +CFLAGS += -DUSE_BSM_AUDIT > +.endif Would it be better to have the use of the audit-related functions in login.c ifdef'd, and to conditionally compile login_audit.c? Robert N M Watson
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20060210143257.I22680>