On Thu, Sep 29, 2005 at 10:49:47PM +1000, Andrew Bartlett scribbled: [snip] > > > and add it to the already too many patches in Samba for debian. Then > > > work with jra and jerry on making this upstream, if it can be done > > > portably. I can't imagine building the other utilities will be a big > > > pain. The tricky bit might be deciding to use the separate makefile or > > > the main build system. > > I think the best idea would be to just create a Makefile.libtdb by hand and > > slam it in the source/tdb/ directory > > This is exactly what already exists, I'm suggesting just patching the > extra in. You missed my point :) - I suggest adding another Makefile in the source/tdb/ dir and not touching the original one - that way, the changes stay clear of the upstream samba code == less ado with maintaining that patch should the original Makefile change. After all, it's a Debian-specific thing we're talking about :) (especially that, as we say below, the core samba should not link against the shared tdb library - the more reason not to touch the upstream source/tdb/ Makefile IMO)
> > then call it separately to the main > > samba build process. That makefile would use libtool (although I don't > > really think it is necessary to use libtool here, since we're targetting > > platforms where gcc -shared works just fine) to create a shared version of > > the tdb library and to recompile/relink the utility programs against that > > library. > > I would personally leave them static, but anyway. Also, I would keep I agree > clear of libtool, due the general feeling against libtool upstream :-) /me is totally against libtool (and autotools in general :P) as well, and gcc -shared works really well where we need it to work. > > The question is whether to make samba link the daemons against the shared > > library or leave them as they are (tdb is linked into the executables > > statically, along with other code). I would vote on leaving the daemons as > > they are as that would minimize the set of required changes to the build > > process. > > I strongly oppose building Samba against a libtdb .so, simply because > this is a very core building block, and I would not wish any changes to > samba itself. I agree with you. So, Steve, your take on that? best regards, marek
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
