[1621] in Kerberos_V5_Development
Re: Where do we stand on libkdb and shared libraries?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Tom Yu)
Tue Aug 20 02:15:55 1996
Date: Tue, 20 Aug 1996 02:15:50 -0400
To: Ezra Peisach <epeisach@MIT.EDU>
Cc: Sam Hartman <hartmans@MIT.EDU>, tlyu@MIT.EDU, krbcore@MIT.EDU
From: Tom Yu <tlyu@MIT.EDU>
In-Reply-To: <9608200147.AA09599@kangaroo.mit.edu>
>>>>> "Ezra" == Ezra Peisach <epeisach@MIT.EDU> writes:
Ezra> If you do not specify -ldb - you will have the potential of
Ezra> getting unresolved symbols - fatal on at least the Alpha.
Ezra> Also, under AIX - you would then bind explictly to the C
Ezra> library version of ndbm (assuming I understand this
Ezra> correctly).
Ezra> Therefore - we lose with and without -ldb.
Not necessarily. I believe that most operating systems that support
shared libraries have some ld option that allows for the linker to not
treat unresolved symbols while building a shared library as an error.
This means that we can simply not worry about resolving symbols at
link time, which makes things vastly easier.
Ezra> b) Problems with making libdb shared... Name conflict for
Ezra> systems which already have libdb - should we call it libdb2?
Definitely we would want to make a name change at some point.
Ezra> c) Another option - merge the objects into the libkdb -
Ezra> similar to how the profile library is merged with libkrb5.
Ezra> Advantage of this approach - developers will always get the
Ezra> right libdb version.
Can't do that because of requirements on PIC code in shared libs on
some platforms (i386, sparc).
---Tom
