Retiring static libpam support

[Ruslan Ermilov]

On Wed, Jun 08, 2005 at 09:48:27AM +0200, Dag-Erling Sm?rgrav 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.
> There's also quite a bit of highly non-portable magic in OpenPAM to
> support static linkage.
> 
> The funny thing, though, is that nothing in our tree acutally uses the
> static libpam (unless you have NO_SHARED= in make.conf).  Therefore,
> 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.
> 
I give a strong "yes" vote.


Cheers,
-- 
Ruslan Ermilov
ru at FreeBSD.org
FreeBSD committer
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 187 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-arch/attachments/20050608/cdd7d61b/attachment.bin