From owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Jun 9 16:55:48 2005 Return-Path: X-Original-To: arch@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 06C5716A41C for ; Thu, 9 Jun 2005 16:55:48 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from bde@zeta.org.au) Received: from mailout2.pacific.net.au (mailout2.pacific.net.au [61.8.0.85]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8937743D1F for ; Thu, 9 Jun 2005 16:55:47 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from bde@zeta.org.au) Received: from mailproxy2.pacific.net.au (mailproxy2.pacific.net.au [61.8.0.87]) by mailout2.pacific.net.au (8.13.4/8.13.4/Debian-1) with ESMTP id j59GtZQC011992; Fri, 10 Jun 2005 02:55:35 +1000 Received: from katana.zip.com.au (katana.zip.com.au [61.8.7.246]) by mailproxy2.pacific.net.au (8.13.4/8.13.4/Debian-1) with ESMTP id j59GtW2t008000; Fri, 10 Jun 2005 02:55:33 +1000 Date: Fri, 10 Jun 2005 02:55:33 +1000 (EST) From: Bruce Evans X-X-Sender: bde@delplex.bde.org To: Julian Elischer In-Reply-To: <42A73773.1040508@elischer.org> Message-ID: <20050610025325.J22796@delplex.bde.org> References: <864qc9mgqc.fsf@xps.des.no> <42A73773.1040508@elischer.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: MULTIPART/MIXED; BOUNDARY="0-268324364-1118336133=:22796" Cc: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Dag-Erling_Sm=F8rgrav?= , arch@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Retiring static libpam support X-BeenThere: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussion related to FreeBSD architecture List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 09 Jun 2005 16:55:48 -0000 This message is in MIME format. The first part should be readable text, while the remaining parts are likely unreadable without MIME-aware tools. --0-268324364-1118336133=:22796 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=X-UNKNOWN; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE On Wed, 8 Jun 2005, Julian Elischer wrote: > Dag-Erling Sm=F8rgrav 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. Actually, IIRC jdp did most of the work to support static linkage. ru just kept it working, unlike some maintainers (thanks ru :)). >> There's also quite a bit of highly non-portable magic in OpenPAM to >> support static linkage. >>=20 >> The funny thing, though, is that nothing in our tree acutally uses the >> static libpam (unless you have NO_SHARED=3D in make.conf). Therefore, I use it all the time. >> 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. > > This may hurt me. I'll have to think about it.. > > We statically link our applications to reduce problems with dependencies > and we've just been moving the authentication side of things over to PAM. This would hurt me if i ran -current. > I gues it would be ok if the basic binary is static and the PAM modules a= re=20 > loaded using dlopen. I think dlopen() still doesn't work right with static linkage. I don't miss any dynamically loaded PAM modules since I don't need them. Bruce --0-268324364-1118336133=:22796--