Re: FYI & question: Linux-PAM modules on Solaris

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 




Nicolas Williams wrote:
> 
> On Fri, May 25, 2001 at 05:30:16PM +0100, David Lee wrote:
> > On Fri, 25 May 2001, Nicolas Williams wrote:
> > > Libtool may be too heavy-weight for PAM methinks. To start on
> > > multi-platform support just a few autoconf macros should suffice.
> > > Eventually it might be easier to libtoolize.
> >
> > True.  Indeed, I think some of the patches I submitted over the past year
> > for "configure.in" and friends seem to have helped matters.  But it's
> > still not ideal, particularly for native (i.e. non gcc) compilers and
> > linkers.  And if we start doing two much linker-related stuff in autoconf,
> > wouldn't that simply be re-inventing the libtool wheel?  (And it wouldn't
> > be as well rounded!)
> 
> Because this wheel has already been re-invented many times, and usually
> it's much simpler than libtool, so we don't have to re-invent it
> anyways.
> 
>:)
> 
> Eventually though, Linux-PAM may come to be used on so many platforms
> that libtool becomes inevitable.

Reading everyone's comments, it seems to me that the current goals of the
team need to dictate how the compiler/linker options are handled.  At
present, my impression (which may be wrong) is that, aside from Linux,
Solaris is the (only?) primary Unix that the team aims to be compatible
with.  At least, there is a long-term bug open to improve Solaris
compatibility, which surely shows intent.
Supposing that Solaris is the only other Unix supported, it seems as though
it would be simpler, for the moment, to handle compiler/linker options via
autoconf macros, or whatever.  The basic thought being, 2 OSes is a short
enough list to handle special cases easily.
However, if the goals and direction of the team shift towards more
widespread Unix compatibility, it would seem appropriate to revisit this
conclusion at that time.

Again, I may be wrong in my assumptions, and I don't speak for Andrew or
the team, but if I'm assuming correctly, then it seems like generalizing
the linker options might be "expensive", effort-wise, for the moment.

Just my $0.02.  :-)

-Jonathan





[Index of Archives]     [Fedora Users]     [Kernel]     [Red Hat Install]     [Linux for the blind]     [Gimp]

  Powered by Linux