On Thursday 11 March 2004 6:31 pm, Nick Harring wrote: > On Thu, 2004-03-11 at 16:48, Chris Ess wrote: > > On Thu, 11 Mar 2004, Ken Jones wrote: > > > On Thursday 11 March 2004 4:22 pm, Tom Collins wrote: > > > > [snip] > > > > > > I'm not sure that there's a need to disable the shared library option > > > > -- I'd like to always build it. > > > > > > I'd like to be able to disable shared libraries. > > > I like not having run time linking each time vchkpw and vdelivermail > > > are run. I'd rather link once at compile time. Makes it just-a-bit-more > > > efficent. The only thing it would save me is recompiling vpopmail > > > dependent libraries on an update, and that's not a big deal for me. > > > > I see where Mr. Jones is coming from and I agree. However, I also see > > where having a shared library could be better. (See, for instance, the > > recurring theme on this list of "I just recompiled vpopmail and now > > qmail doesn't work/users can't authenticate through courier-imap/other > > stuff is broken now.") > > [snip] > Disabling should definitely remain an option since I've both done all > the work, and the bulk of the work was done by autoconf by automagically > supporting --disable-foo for every --enable-foo with a case statement > and some ifs. > > The next issue is the bugaboo of performance. [snip]
Excellent work! It's great to have real numbers on performance. And I like the idea that we will support both. Ken Jones
