On Thu, 2005-09-29 at 14:43 +0200, Marek Habersack wrote: > On Thu, Sep 29, 2005 at 10:21:37PM +1000, Andrew Bartlett scribbled: > [snip] > > > > I don't mind building a tdb package out of the samba source tree, but I > > > > don't really know which tools have to be in it. > > > It would indeed make more sense to build the package from the samba > > > sources > > > now. The tools that are, IMHO, required to be present in the package are > > > the > > > ones built by samba by default, tdbtest and tbtorture are quite optional > > > and > > > could be included just for completness. > > > > So, the approach would be to get the libtdb building code from sf.net, > it's just the standard autoconf code, so no problem there > > > and add it to the already too many patches in Samba for debian. Then > > work with jra and jerry on making this upstream, if it can be done > > portably. I can't imagine building the other utilities will be a big > > pain. The tricky bit might be deciding to use the separate makefile or > > the main build system. > I think the best idea would be to just create a Makefile.libtdb by hand and > slam it in the source/tdb/ directory
This is exactly what already exists, I'm suggesting just patching the extra in. > then call it separately to the main > samba build process. That makefile would use libtool (although I don't > really think it is necessary to use libtool here, since we're targetting > platforms where gcc -shared works just fine) to create a shared version of > the tdb library and to recompile/relink the utility programs against that > library. I would personally leave them static, but anyway. Also, I would keep clear of libtool, due the general feeling against libtool upstream :-) > 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. Andrew Bartlett -- Andrew Bartlett http://samba.org/~abartlet/ Samba Developer, SuSE Labs, Novell Inc. http://suse.de Authentication Developer, Samba Team http://samba.org Student Network Administrator, Hawker College http://hawkerc.net
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
