Samba 2.0 build updated for HPUX.

Jeremy Allison jallison at
Fri Nov 20 20:08:43 GMT 1998

Dirk De Wachter wrote:

> About shadow.h checking:
> >configure:1779: checking for shadow.h
> >configure:1789: cc -E  -Ae conftest.c >/dev/null 2>conftest.out
> >cpp: "param.h", line 45: warning 2001: Redefinition of macro MAXINT.
> >configure: failed program was:
> >#line 1784 "configure"
> >#include "confdefs.h"
> >#include <shadow.h>
> As you can see the test fails on a warning (a broken include
> installation, sigh). However shadow.h *IS* present. What should be
> done to make the test succeed? Remove warnings from the compiler
> output (with flag -w) ??

I don't think there's anything I can do about broken include
files. I don't think we should remove the warnings. Not sure
what to do here....

What version of HPUX is this ?

> Some extra tests that can be resolved by including the '-lsec'
> library:
> >configure:3748: cc -o conftest -O  -Ae  conftest.c  1>&5
> >/usr/ccs/bin/ld: Unsatisfied symbols:
> >   getspnam (code)
> getspnam on HPUX is found in library -lsec
> This is already checked now (configure line 4924)
> Once -lsec is added to the CFLAGS, it remains there during most
> of the following tests in configure. Is this the way it is supposed
> to be?
> The following codes are also found in library -lsec and perhaps should be rechecked?
> >   putprpwnam (code)
> >   bigcrypt (code)
> >   getprpwnam (code)
> >   set_auth_parameters (code)

Ok I've tidied up the checks for -lsecurity and -lsec
so they're done in the same way as the connect checks.

This should remove a lot of special case checks.

Can you re-check out the 2.0 branch and try again 
please ?



Buying an operating system without source is like buying
a self-assembly Space Shuttle with no instructions.

More information about the samba-technical mailing list