On Thu, Sep 29, 2005 at 02:55:24PM +0200, Marek Habersack wrote: > On Thu, Sep 29, 2005 at 10:49:47PM +1000, Andrew Bartlett scribbled: > > > The question is whether to make samba link the daemons against the shared > > > library or leave them as they are (tdb is linked into the executables > > > statically, along with other code). I would vote on leaving the daemons as > > > they are as that would minimize the set of required changes to the build > > > process.
> > I strongly oppose building Samba against a libtdb .so, simply because > > this is a very core building block, and I would not wish any changes to > > samba itself. > I agree with you. So, Steve, your take on that? Well, as I said earlier, I'm happy to build a tdb package from the Samba sources, but I'm really not keen on touching the upstream tree in order to do so. I do think the "already too many patches for Samba in Debian" are a *bad* thing, and I don't want to add to them at this point for wishlist changes. So, I would greatly prefer to see this integrated upstream first and find its way into the Debian packages by that route. -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.debian.org/
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
