Retiring static libpam support

[Doug Rabson]

On Wednesday 08 June 2005 21:31, Julian Elischer wrote:
> 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.

You can link statically to some libraries and dynamically to others - 
that might work quite well. You would probably end up linking 
dynamically to libc otherwise you might get two copies of libc when you 
load a pam module.