On Mon, Apr 08, 2002 at 02:49:04PM +0200, Dag-Erling Smorgrav wrote: > Ruslan Ermilov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sunbay Software AG,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] FreeBSD committer,
+380.652.512.251 Simferopol, Ukraine
http://www.FreeBSD.org The Power To Serve
http://www.oracle.com Enabling The Information Age
msg37096/pgp00000.pgp
Description: PGP signature
