[1594] in Kerberos_V5_Development
Re: util/makeshlib
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Tom Yu)
Thu Aug 15 23:44:18 1996
Date: Thu, 15 Aug 1996 23:44:10 -0400
To: epeisach@MIT.EDU
Cc: tlyu@MIT.EDU, krbcore@MIT.EDU
From: Tom Yu <tlyu@MIT.EDU>
In-Reply-To: <9608160122.AA05163@kangaroo.mit.edu>
>>>>> "Ezra" == epeisach <epeisach@MIT.EDU> writes:
Ezra> You recently made a change to expect that dbm_error and
Ezra> dbm_clearerr are expected to not be present....
Actually the change was to allow unresolved symbols in shared lib
generation on the Alpha, which from brief examination is also the case
in several other platforms. If -ldb is not provived (which will cause
breakage in places because libdb is always static), then the ndbm
entry points will end up being undefined if there is no ndbm support
in libc.
This whole dbm/ndbm/db business has been making me very tired. Do we
actually want kdb to use the ndbm API?
Ezra> a) A better solution - in the dispatch table put a
Ezra> NULL.... If you will note, the macros which use dbm_error
Ezra> and dbm_clearerr are never used!!
Ezra> b) Even better solution - remove elements from the dispatch
Ezra> tables which are never used.
I've thought of these... and they both seem reasonable. Then again
since we're already abstracting things away via the kdb dispatch
table, why not use the native db API, and only use the ndbm API if
someone wants to compile with ndbm for some unknown reason?
---Tom
