Review request: DNS server implementation
idra at samba.org
Mon Oct 18 08:47:50 MDT 2010
On Mon, 2010-10-18 at 13:30 +0200, Stefan (metze) Metzmacher wrote:
> Hi Simo,
> >> What does removing it actually gain you? The main bin/samba binary is
> >> already tiny (58 kbytes on my machine, including debug symbols). All
> >> the server components are enabled/disabled using smb.conf options,
> >> which allows you to "not care" about a server component by not running
> >> it.
> >> What would we actually gain by using dlopen() on these instead of
> >> linking?
> > Allows us to build samba in multiple ways. For example single binary vs
> > multiple binaries becomes possible in parallel and does not require a
> > rebuild. It also allows to remove a function for good by simply deleting
> > the relative shared object, so that even bad configuration cannot result
> > in a daemon we do not want from running.
> > Easier for embedded platforms to understand what to remove, they just
> > simply avoid including the libraries corresponding to the services they
> > do not need.
> I think we already support that, we just need a way to dynamicaly specify
> what modules should be build as shared objects on the configure commandline.
> (Kai and Günther were working on that for the s3 waf build)
> With this diff the LDAP server gets build as bin/modules/service/LDAP.so
> diff --git a/source4/ldap_server/wscript_build
> index e72f5f8..2cc0c35 100644
> --- a/source4/ldap_server/wscript_build
> +++ b/source4/ldap_server/wscript_build
> @@ -6,6 +6,7 @@ bld.SAMBA_MODULE('LDAP',
> + internal_module=False,
> deps='CREDENTIALS LIBCLI_LDAP SAMDB process_model gensec
> LIBSAMBA-HOSTCONFIG samba_server_gensec'
> and make test still works...
Ooh, that's nice!
Samba Team GPL Compliance Officer <simo at samba.org>
Principal Software Engineer at Red Hat, Inc. <simo at redhat.com>
More information about the samba-technical