abartlet at samba.org
Sat Aug 30 23:45:24 GMT 2003
On Sun, 2003-08-31 at 07:08, Ken Cross wrote:
> It's very nice having libsmbclient built, but we're not really using it. It
> can make a significant difference if the applications are linked to the
> shared library. Typical examples are, before:
> It wasn't too hard to hack Makefile to build them with libscmclient.so, but
> doing it in general would be trickier. Looks like it might be worth it
> though, especially when (like me) you want to distribute updated binaries
> via the internet.
There are a number of very good reasons why we have not taken this
path. Firstly, we generally consider the issue of shared-libraries to
be 'non core' - that is, we don't particularly care if they don't work
on every platform, because libsmbclient is the only thing affected.
However, even where they are supported, we get into difficulties - we
must make it possible to link and run against such a library (and the
correct version of such a library) both from the build directory, and
from the install directory.
And before you suggest libtool as the solution to all the worlds
problems, I suggest you real the archives ;-)
Finally, there is the simple issue that the interfaces you are using in
libsmbclient are not in any way versioned, or intended to be externally
accessed - they change every time somebody makes a change to samba, and
chasing down the bugreports because somebody is using a slightly old
libsmbclient with their smbd would be a nightmare!
Andrew Bartlett abartlet at pcug.org.au
Manager, Authentication Subsystems, Samba Team abartlet at samba.org
Student Network Administrator, Hawker College abartlet at hawkerc.net
http://samba.org http://build.samba.org http://hawkerc.net
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url : http://lists.samba.org/archive/samba-technical/attachments/20030830/cf1aa3bf/attachment.bin
More information about the samba-technical