3.2 Makefile.in question

[Gerald (Jerry) Carter]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Herb Lewis wrote:
> We have the following in the 3.2 Makefile.in (only some lines
> shown). Why is the definition of LIBWBCLIENT different to the
> others? Looking in configure it probably resolves to being the
> same but why not be consistent? Was there a reason for this?
> 
> LIBTALLOC_STATIC_TARGET=@LIBTALLOC_STATIC_TARGET@
> LIBTALLOC=$(LIBTALLOC_STATIC_TARGET) @LIBTALLOC_SHARED@
> 
> LIBTDB_STATIC_TARGET=@LIBTDB_STATIC_TARGET@
> LIBTDB=$(LIBTDB_STATIC_TARGET) @LIBTDB_SHARED@
> 
> LIBWBCLIENT_STATIC_TARGET=@LIBWBCLIENT_STATIC_TARGET@
> LIBWBCLIENT=@LIBWBCLIENT_STATIC@ @LIBWBCLIENT_SHARED@
> 
> LIBNETAPI_STATIC_TARGET=@LIBNETAPI_STATIC_TARGET@
> LIBNETAPI=$(LIBNETAPI_STATIC_TARGET) @LIBNETAPI_SHARED@

Herb,

I'm assuming we always build static version of talloc, tdb,
and netapi.  But originally there was no static version of
libwbclient and this was managed by a configure option.
The reason we don't always build libwbclient.a is that the whole
point of libwbclient to to decouple the compile time dependency
between smbd and winbindd.




cheers, jerry
- --
=====================================================================
Samba                                    ------- http://www.samba.org
Likewise Software          ---------  http://www.likewisesoftware.com
"What man is a man who does not make the world better?"      --Balian
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFIWqqKIR7qMdg1EfYRAr8fAKCfMnsuppuKD5kGax6nwtpqri+pHwCfYbS8
yPAt5sZbsQwOjazpmqAhkCY=
=BVE6
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----