RE: ldbm backend does not build if static libraries disabled (ITS#3071)

[ando@sys-net.it]

>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: owner-openldap-bugs@OpenLDAP.org
>> [mailto:owner-openldap-bugs@OpenLDAP.org]On Behalf Of
>> B.Candler@pobox.com
>
>> On Thu, Apr 08, 2004 at 12:25:24PM -0700, Howard Chu wrote:
>> > This is a libtool limitation. "Don't do this."
>>
>> Hmm, so I'm not sure what conclusion to draw:
>>
>> (1) Is --disable-static not supported? Then perhaps it should
>> be removed entirely.
>>
>> (2) Is the combination of --disable-static and --enable-slapd
>> causing the
>>     problem? Or --disable-static and --enable-ldbm? In which
>> case either
>>     it could be documented, or the configure script could
>> check for this
>>     combination and throw up an error if you try to do it.
>
> Neither.
>
> The same libtool script is used to compile the libraries and all the
> slapd backends. If you configure with --disable-static then none of the
> backends can be compiled as static objects. You can of course build them
> as dynamic modules instead.
>
> We used to have a hack in the libtool that we bundled, to allow
> static/shared mode to be selected on a per-target basis, but that was
> removed some time ago when our patch to support this feature was
> rejected by the libtool project. You may be able to use a newer (1.5.x)
> version of libtool to get around this issue, but you'll have to build
> that separately and edit the OpenLDAP Makefiles to get it to be used.
>
> We have not bundled libtool 1.5.x ourselves because it depends on the
> current autoconf etc. and upgrading the entire build suite is a major
> undertaking.

Is there a valid reason to --disable-static?  I mean, does OpenLDAP build
much differently if one disables static objects?  I always thought the
issue was whether to enable or not dynamic objects.  Then one can decide
not to install static objects...

p.

-- 
Pierangelo Masarati
mailto:pierangelo.masarati@sys-net.it