[PATCH] Shared samba build

Jelmer Vernooij jelmer at samba.org
Thu Nov 24 00:49:12 GMT 2005

On Mon, Nov 14, 2005 at 05:30:48PM +1100, Luke Mewburn wrote about 'Re: [PATCH] Shared samba build':
> On Wed, Oct 26, 2005 at 02:17:08PM +0200, Jelmer Vernooij wrote:
>   | Rather then linking everything into one big library, I think we should
>   | clearly keep all subsystems seperate. Otherwise, we might end up with
>   | the dependency hell we had (have?) in Samba3, with libbigballofmud and
>   | the like.
> What exactly is the problem with having one large library
> that all of the Samba applications are linked against?
This might sound funny, but we (used to) try to build on systems
that don't support libraries. I'm not sure how much of the systems we
try to support don't have support for libraries at the moment, but at least
that was the original reason. 

For Samba4, we're supporting pretty much everything (the build system 
figures out what is supported and (will) try the most optimal solution
available, which in most cases is a couple of shared libs.


-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
Url : http://lists.samba.org/archive/samba-technical/attachments/20051124/25721bc5/attachment.bin

More information about the samba-technical mailing list