Date: Mon, 8 Apr 2002 17:04:34 +0300 From: Ruslan Ermilov <ru@FreeBSD.org> To: Dag-Erling Smorgrav <des@ofug.org>, Mark Murray <markm@FreeBSD.org> Cc: current@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/lib/libpam/modules/pam_unix pam_unix.c Message-ID: <20020408140434.GA94938@sunbay.com> In-Reply-To: <xzpg026pd8f.fsf@flood.ping.uio.no> References: <200204072043.g37KhRi76699@freefall.freebsd.org> <20020408101138.GA68318@sunbay.com> <xzp1ydqqyx6.fsf@flood.ping.uio.no> <20020408110123.GB68318@sunbay.com> <xzpg026pd8f.fsf@flood.ping.uio.no>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
[-- Attachment #1 --]
On Mon, Apr 08, 2002 at 02:49:04PM +0200, Dag-Erling Smorgrav wrote:
> Ruslan Ermilov <ru@FreeBSD.org> writes:
> > You're right. I forgot to relink pam_ssh.so library, and the diff was
> > against the wrong revision. I will still commit the "const poisoning"
> > patch to libutil, as the impact turned out to be really low.
>
> Thanks, const poisoning is a Good Thing [tm].
>
> BTW, could you try to figure out a way we can split up the libpam
> build so the modules can depend on libpam.so? What I'd like is:
>
> 1) build static modules
> 2) build static and dynamic libpam
> 3) build dynamic modules (with dependency on libpam.so)
>
> or
>
> 1) build dynamic libpam
> 2) build modules (with dependency on libpam.so)
> 3) build static libpam
>
> or something similar.
>
That should be as simple as that:
%%%
Index: Makefile.inc
===================================================================
RCS file: /home/ncvs/src/lib/libpam/modules/Makefile.inc,v
retrieving revision 1.10
diff -u -r1.10 Makefile.inc
--- Makefile.inc 6 Apr 2002 19:32:37 -0000 1.10
+++ Makefile.inc 8 Apr 2002 14:03:39 -0000
@@ -9,11 +9,7 @@
CFLAGS+= -I${.CURDIR}/../../libpam
WARNS?= 4
-# This is nasty.
-# For the static case, libpam.a depends on the modules.
-# For the dynamic case, the modules depend on libpam.so.N
-# Punt for the time being until I can figure out how to do it.
-#DPADD+= ${LIBPAM}
-#LDADD+= -lpam
+# Break `checkdpadd' deliberately.
+LDADD+= -lpam
.include "../Makefile.inc"
%%%
For the static case (Mark probably means building of libpam.a here),
libpam.a indeed depends on the modules, but in the make(1) sense of
dependency, which we (sorry, _you_ Mark :-) handle nicely with the
STATIC_MODULES thingie.
Cheers,
--
Ruslan Ermilov Sysadmin and DBA,
ru@sunbay.com Sunbay Software AG,
ru@FreeBSD.org FreeBSD committer,
+380.652.512.251 Simferopol, Ukraine
http://www.FreeBSD.org The Power To Serve
http://www.oracle.com Enabling The Information Age
[-- Attachment #2 --]
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (FreeBSD)
Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org
iD8DBQE8saNyUkv4P6juNwoRAgPeAJ0feB5zylwc42YULtkgdaqL4/fAHACfbc9M
wHQ7VC2Saq5/Tqboql9bEUY=
=8O7u
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20020408140434.GA94938>