samba 3.4 configure.in question

[simo]

On Fri, 2009-05-01 at 15:42 -0500, Gerald (Jerry) Carter wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
> 
> Hey Herb,
> 
> On Fri, 1 May 2009, Herb Lewis wrote:
> 
> > configure.in has the following lines to determine if you want the
> > libraries built static or shared. Is there some reason wbclient
> > library is not included?
> >
> > configure.in:SMB_LIBRARY(talloc, 1)
> > configure.in:SMB_LIBRARY(tdb, 1)
> > configure.in:SMB_LIBRARY(netapi, 0)
> > configure.in:SMB_LIBRARY(smbclient, 0)
> > configure.in:SMB_LIBRARY(smbsharemodes, 0)
> > configure.in:SMB_LIBRARY(addns, 0, no, [undefined API])
> 
> It's a bit of a debate :-)
> 
> IMO libwbcliebt is a shared object specifically to decouple
> smbd from a compile time dependency on winbindd.  My SambaXP
> talk where I showed Samba 3.0.34 using winbindd from the 3.2.11
> release is an example of this as is.  My concern, which may
> be misplaced, is that if you provide a static version of the
> library, it will be misused.  But I could be just paranoid.
> I can't really see why you would technically have to have
> a static version. Although I totally udnerstand Volker's point
> about a convience for developing.
> 
> In either case, Volker and possibly others disagree with me.
> So we've all agreed to disagree :-)  In the end, it is
> really the APIs that matter the most to me.
> 
> But obviously, the majority rules.  That's just the background
> to answer you question.

>From a distribution PoV static libraries are just evil (they are also
normally not installed by policy in fedora), and the more modularized
your code the better.

Just to throw in my point of view.

Simo.

-- 
Simo Sorce
Samba Team GPL Compliance Officer <simo at samba.org>
Principal Software Engineer at Red Hat, Inc. <simo at redhat.com>