Date: Wed, 8 Jun 2005 13:21:53 +0300 From: Ruslan Ermilov <ru@FreeBSD.org> To: Dag-Erling Sm?rgrav <des@des.no> Cc: arch@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: Retiring static libpam support Message-ID: <20050608102153.GA80141@ip.net.ua> In-Reply-To: <864qc9mgqc.fsf@xps.des.no> References: <864qc9mgqc.fsf@xps.des.no>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
[-- Attachment #1 --] On Wed, Jun 08, 2005 at 09:48:27AM +0200, Dag-Erling Sm?rgrav wrote: > Currently, libpam is built both dynamically (with modules in separate > files which it dlopen()s, like everybody else does) and statically > (with the modules compiled-in). This is a major headache, because the > static modules need to be built before the static library, but the > dynamic library needs to be built before the dynamic modules, so we > have quite a bit of magic (thanks ru!) to build libpam in two passes. > There's also quite a bit of highly non-portable magic in OpenPAM to > support static linkage. > > The funny thing, though, is that nothing in our tree acutally uses the > static libpam (unless you have NO_SHARED= in make.conf). Therefore, > I'd like to remove the ability to build a static libpam altogether, > unless someone can come up with a very good reason not to. > I give a strong "yes" vote. Cheers, -- Ruslan Ermilov ru@FreeBSD.org FreeBSD committer [-- Attachment #2 --] -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (FreeBSD) iD8DBQFCpsbBqRfpzJluFF4RAns1AJ9WLOW0Kum81YDWNAjTgyqrTKpxjQCfeRwY bJvb2h+u4Pul27jeJNpiIEA= =Owbr -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20050608102153.GA80141>