LIBREPLACE_LIBS in s3 (Re: [SCM] Samba Shared Repository - branch master updated)

[Stefan (metze) Metzmacher]

Hi Björn.

> - Log -----------------------------------------------------------------
> commit a80a0b7728de21e992f8f0b3e31b600441a6535d
> Author: Björn Jacke <bj@...>
> Date:   Sat Oct 31 10:37:44 2009 +0100
>
>     s3:Makefile: add LIBREPLACE_LIBS for talloc, tdb and wbclient

I think talloc and tdb should not get LIBREPLACE_NETWORK_LIBS
linked in... they don't include "system/network.h" from libreplace.
And the standalone builds also doesn't use LIBREPLACE_NETWORK at all.

I think it's a bit confusing to have LIBREPLACE_LIBS as the same
as LIBREPLACE_NETWORK_LIBS.

[Björn Jacke-3]

On 2009-11-01 at 11:18 +0100 Stefan (metze) Metzmacher sent off:
> I think talloc and tdb should not get LIBREPLACE_NETWORK_LIBS
> linked in... they don't include "system/network.h" from libreplace.
> And the standalone builds also doesn't use LIBREPLACE_NETWORK at all.

even if unused, linking in object files that have unresolved symbols is bad
manner. I think we could eliminate the dependency the clean way by splitting up
LIBREPLACE_OBJ so that for example the libreplace network object files are only
linked in when needed. But is it really worth doing that?


> I think it's a bit confusing to have LIBREPLACE_LIBS as the same
> as LIBREPLACE_NETWORK_LIBS.

that's because the LIBREPLACE_NETWORK_LIBS are the only libs currently required
by any part of libreplace. Using LIBREPLACE_LIBS inside samba's Makefle is
straigt forward as long as we just have one single LIBREPLACE_OBJ blob. I think
if the object files would be split up the old LIBREPLACE_NETWORK_LIBS would make
ore sense again.

Cheers
Björn