This is the mail archive of the
libc-alpha@sourceware.org
mailing list for the glibc project.
Re: [patch] Fix linking ldconfig when --enable-static-nss (withChangeLog)
- From: "Joseph S. Myers" <joseph at codesourcery dot com>
- To: Paul Pluzhnikov <ppluzhnikov at google dot com>
- Cc: Mike Frysinger <vapier at gentoo dot org>, libc-alpha at sourceware dot org, Daniel Jacobowitz <dmj at google dot com>
- Date: Thu, 1 Mar 2012 20:42:00 +0000 (UTC)
- Subject: Re: [patch] Fix linking ldconfig when --enable-static-nss (withChangeLog)
- References: <20100113022746.7769A76A5E@ppluzhnikov.mtv.corp.google.com><201001131320.44826.vapier@gentoo.org> <8ac60eac1001131117h61196313mf16ab24e66aadf78@mail.gmail.com><CALoOobOzHMa9QLNi8ZnkArpihxuGrUAGH0YdT8FWSFVJ6MPT0g@mail.gmail.com><CALoOobNAiYvboUJ6gcXQG+mJBiGjGm_+0Ohp8Bh+CA8E1qzcVg@mail.gmail.com><Pine.LNX.4.64.1202251814280.20932@digraph.polyomino.org.uk><CALoOobMNRGZrYH_P7ROAY_iX12YhD7OaJppvR5SY2fRq3DNVtA@mail.gmail.com>
On Sat, 25 Feb 2012, Paul Pluzhnikov wrote:
> The patch is much simpler than the one attached to
> http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=6528, but requires that
> a statically-linked binary explicitly list "-lnss_files -lnss_dns
> -lresolv" on the link line.
>
> I *think* Daniel's patch from PR 6528 would not require clients to do
> that, so perhaps that's better?
As I see it, Daniel's patch has the twin advantages:
* It reduces the amount of code involved in supporting
--enable-static-nss.
* It makes --enable-static-nss easier to use.
Thus, I'd prefer Daniel's patch. What do other people think?
--
Joseph S. Myers
joseph@codesourcery.com