[1616] in Kerberos_V5_Development
Re: Where do we stand on libkdb and shared libraries?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Ken Raeburn)
Mon Aug 19 16:51:53 1996
To: epeisach@MIT.EDU
Cc: tlyu@MIT.EDU, hartmans@MIT.EDU, krbcore@MIT.EDU
From: Ken Raeburn <raeburn@cygnus.com>
Date: 19 Aug 1996 16:51:28 -0400
In-Reply-To: epeisach@MIT.EDU's message of Mon, 19 Aug 1996 15:00:02 -0400
I've been trying to get shared libs working at Cygnus too. The kadm
stuff has been a pain. And makeshlib.sh won't handle the GNU ld on
AIX.
> As I see it there may be several gotchas currently wrt shared
> libraries.
>
> a) In making a shared libkdb5 - do we need a shared libdb? Currently we
> are relying on the fact that the ndbm and db interface names are the
> same - so they are initially resolved - but is this healthy?
I think it'd be a good idea to have a shared db. And it should be fed
to anything that builds a shared library that needs db.
> b) Under AIX - what happens if you specify that a shared kdb5 depends on
> a static db - will you get a valid library? Or will you suck in all the
> objects from the static library?
I tried this last week... (At least, I think it was on AIX.) The db
library code got sucked in. Which may not be a horrible thing. I
haven't verified if the library would actually work, but it wouldn't
be a pure shared library, at least not on all systems.
> c) Based on (a) and (b) do we need a shared libdb? Should kdb_dbm.c be
> rewritten to use libdb directly?
I'd say yes and probably, but I don't know if either is actually
required, just a good idea.
