[PATCH 00/12] Fixes allowing build with --disable-shared option
jelmer at samba.org
Wed Oct 10 04:09:51 MDT 2012
On Wed, 2012-10-10 at 12:01 +0200, Andrzej Hajda wrote:
> On 09.10.2012 23:47, Andrew Bartlett wrote:
> > On Wed, 2012-10-10 at 08:10 +1100, Andrew Bartlett wrote:
> >> On Tue, 2012-10-09 at 22:59 +0200, Andrzej Hajda wrote:
> >>> This set of patches fixes issues preventing build samba with
> >>> --disable-shared option, at least on Ubuntu 12.04.
> >>> Patches contains:
> >>> - dependency fixes,
> >>> - remove/rename duplicated functions,
> >>> - wscript for samba3 fix.
> >>> Patches can be applied separately.
> >>> Sorry for re-posting - newsgroup membership issue.
> >> While most of these fixes look quite reasonable, I'm interested what
> >> brought this up? Particularly on Ubuntu 12.04, how does
> >> --disable-shared help?
> > I'm particularly curious about this because our use of rpath means we
> > can install safely and easily in a prefix without interfering with a
> > system lib, gaining many of the advantages of a static build, without
> > the binary size!
> I am working on utility which uses samba libraries (winexe), it is a
> single executable without configuration files.
> The ultimate goal is to separate winexe from samba (now it is a dirty
> patch on top of samba sources).
> Other goal is to make an option to compile it statically, or at least to
> significantly decrease number of shared libraries it uses.
Are you aware of the work that Thomas Hood has been doing @
http://winexe.git.sourceforge.net/ or is that what you're working on?
> >> I'll comment on these patches individually.
> > In summary,
> > Any changes you make here must, in developer waf and developer autoconf
> > build:
> > - not introduce any more warnings (implicit declaration of function in
> > particular) into either the developer waf and developer autoconf build.
> > - must pass a full make test in both of these
> > It should also in the waf build disable functionality that clearly
> > requires shared objects, including 'make test', and I'm not really a fan
> > of creating deliberately un-testable build combinations.
> > Finally, I'm not sure if we even want this result - to really, really
> > operate without shared libraries we would have to operate without
> > python, and this is something the top level (waf) build requires pretty
> > strongly these days.
> > That is, I would be very hesitant to restore --disable-shared as a
> > supported mode of operation if it only serves to restrict our
> > development options (such as using python more) or makes it even harder
> > for us to test that Samba always works in all supported combinations.
> I was not aware that "--disable-shared" is not supported, presence of it
> in waf suggests otherwise :)
> But as I wrote earlier I really do not need it.
I think we should probably remove --disable-shared, precisely to avoid
the impression that it is supported. It's just another one of those
things that makes the build system more complex and doubles the number
of possible configurations. Is there a good reason we should keep it
More information about the samba-technical