Retiring static libpam support

[Julian Elischer]

adding more to my revious mail..


Julian Elischer wrote:

>
>
> Dag-Erling Smørgrav wrote:
>
>> Julian Elischer <julian at elischer.org> writes:
>>  
>>
>>> I gues it would be ok if the basic binary is static and the PAM
>>> modules are loaded using dlopen.
>>>   
>>
>>
>> You can't load dynamic objects from a static binary.  It doesn't have
>> a working dlopen() (since dlopen() is implemented by the run-time
>> loader), and even if it did, there is no relocation table there to
>> resolve dependencies in the dynamic object.
>>  
>>
>
> so basically that would screw us.


Or force us to abandon static linking of apps,
which might be an OK decision, but basically
I think it's kind of the thin edge of the wedge for fully desupporting 
all static
binaries.  if nothing that does authentication
can be static then there is no such thing any more as a fully static system
and one might as well just not bother.

>
>> DES
>>  
>>
> _______________________________________________
> freebsd-arch at freebsd.org mailing list
> http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-arch
> To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-arch-unsubscribe at freebsd.org"