Date: Thu, 17 Apr 2003 12:44:01 -0700 (PDT) From: John Polstra <jdp@polstra.com> To: current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: HEADS UP: new NSS Message-ID: <200304171944.h3HJi1jK095151@strings.polstra.com> In-Reply-To: <20030418014500.B94094@iclub.nsu.ru> References: <20030417141133.GA4155@madman.celabo.org> <20030417144449.GA4530@madman.celabo.org> <200304171535.h3HFZEFs094589@strings.polstra.com> <20030418014500.B94094@iclub.nsu.ru>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
In article <20030418014500.B94094@iclub.nsu.ru>, Max Khon <fjoe@iclub.nsu.ru> wrote: > On Thu, Apr 17, 2003 at 08:35:14AM -0700, John Polstra wrote: > > > You might want to look at how libpam handles this situation. In the > > static case, all of the known modules are linked into it statically. > > Then they are located and registered at runtime by means of a linker > > set. > > statically linking pam_ldap to /bin/ls will be a nightmare :) True, but why would /bin/ls need anything from PAM at all? It doesn't currently use PAM. > we need either allow dlopen(3) to be used in statically linked programs > or move to dynamically linked /. Moving to a fully dynamically linked system sounds easier to me. But in the past there has been strong opposition to the idea every time it has been proposed. John -- John Polstra John D. Polstra & Co., Inc. Seattle, Washington USA "Disappointment is a good sign of basic intelligence." -- Chögyam Trungpa
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200304171944.h3HJi1jK095151>