[1619] in Kerberos_V5_Development
Re: Where do we stand on libkdb and shared libraries?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Ezra Peisach)
Mon Aug 19 21:47:40 1996
To: Sam Hartman <hartmans@MIT.EDU>
Cc: tlyu@MIT.EDU, krbcore@MIT.EDU
In-Reply-To: Your message of "19 Aug 1996 18:20:49 EDT."
<tsld90nuibi.fsf@tertius.mit.edu>
Date: Mon, 19 Aug 1996 21:47:29 EDT
From: Ezra Peisach <epeisach@MIT.EDU>
So the issues as I see it then fall into the following categories:
a) Shared kdb, static db
On some platforms (Linux is one) - you will incorporate the static objects
into the library, so in building libkdb will have a copy and kadm5 will, etc.
(This is assuming that you use -ldb in creation of the library)
If you do not specify -ldb - you will have the potential of getting unresolved
symbols - fatal on at least the Alpha.
Also, under AIX - you would then bind explictly to the C library version of
ndbm (assuming I understand this correctly).
Therefore - we lose with and without -ldb.
b) Problems with making libdb shared... Name conflict for systems which already
have libdb - should we call it libdb2?
c) Another option - merge the objects into the libkdb - similar to how the
profile library is merged with libkrb5.
Advantage of this approach - developers will always get the right
libdb version.
I'm open to suggestions.
Ezra
