Retiring static libpam support

[Julian Elischer]

Dag-Erling Smørgrav 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.
>  
>

This may hurt me. I'll have to think about it..

We statically link our applications to reduce problems with dependencies
and we've just been moving the authentication side of things over to PAM.

I gues it would be ok if the basic binary is static and the PAM modules 
are loaded using dlopen.

>DES
>  
>