samba - Jun 2002 - Samba-2.2.5pre1 - all binaries require libldap with --with-ldapsam

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Hi,

While preparing packaging of te upcoming samba-2.2.5, we are looking at
having samba packages with and without ldap enabled, however, we would
like to try and minimize the duplication. But, it seems that most (all?)
binaries resulting from a --with-ldapsam build en up linking to libldap.

Are there really good reasons for nmblookup, smbcacls, smbclient,
smbmount, smbprint, smbspool, smbtar, smbumount to need to link against
libldap (we have these in a samba-client sub-package, I don't see a need
for a samba-client-ldap package), or should I be compiling them differently?

I would prefer not to have to worry about whether I last compiled with
or without ldapsam, which is one of the points of making the -ldap
specific sub-packages.

Buchan

Please cc me in reply, I'm subscribed in digest.
- --
|----------------Registered Linux User #182071-----------------|
Buchan Milne                Mechanical Engineer, Network Manager
Cellphone * Work            +27 82 472 2231 * +27 21 8828820x202
Stellenbosch Automotive Engineering         http://www.cae.co.za
GPG Key                   http://ranger.dnsalias.com/bgmilne.asc
1024D/60D204A7 2919 E232 5610 A038 87B1 72D6 AC92 BA50 60D2 04A7
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQE9BKtIrJK6UGDSBKcRAuIMAJ9svaIWMC+3n+200iEm6wLPuEBrOACcD3qO
4bsImFuRjaK3doYyrrUVpDk=QDq1
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

> From: "Buchan Milne" <bgmilne@cae.co.za>
> To: <samba@lists.samba.org>
> Sent: Monday, June 10, 2002 9:36 AM
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Hi,
>
> While preparing packaging of te upcoming samba-2.2.5, we are looking at
> having samba packages with and without ldap enabled, however, we would
> like to try and minimize the duplication. But, it seems that most (all?)
> binaries resulting from a --with-ldapsam build en up linking to libldap.
On this note:

IS LDAP ever going to be an option that is enabled/disabled in smb.conf?  Or
is it always gonna have to be a compile time option?

Thanks

Simon

On Mon, 10 Jun 2002, Buchan Milne wrote:
> While preparing packaging of te upcoming samba-2.2.5, we are looking at
> having samba packages with and without ldap enabled, however, we would
> like to try and minimize the duplication. But, it seems that most (all?)
> binaries resulting from a --with-ldapsam build en up linking to libldap.
> 
> Are there really good reasons for nmblookup, smbcacls, smbclient,
> smbmount, smbprint, smbspool, smbtar, smbumount to need to link against
> libldap (we have these in a samba-client sub-package, I don't see a
need
> for a samba-client-ldap package), or should I be compiling them
> differently?
smbpasswd & smbd will need the ldap libraries in this case (pdbedit as 
well if you package that).  Our makefile is kind of a mess when it comes 
to this kind of thing.






cheers, jerry

On Mon, 10 Jun 2002, Simon Jester wrote:
> > From: "Buchan Milne" <bgmilne@cae.co.za>
> > To: <samba@lists.samba.org>
> > Sent: Monday, June 10, 2002 9:36 AM
> >
> 
> > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> > Hash: SHA1
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > While preparing packaging of te upcoming samba-2.2.5, we are looking
at
> > having samba packages with and without ldap enabled, however, we would
> > like to try and minimize the duplication. But, it seems that most
(all?)
> > binaries resulting from a --with-ldapsam build en up linking to
libldap.
> 
> On this note:
> 
> IS LDAP ever going to be an option that is enabled/disabled in smb.conf? 
Or
> is it always gonna have to be a compile time option?
Already done in HEAD I believe.








cheers, jerry

Skipped content of type multipart/mixed-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 252 bytes
Desc: not available
Url :
http://lists.samba.org/archive/samba/attachments/20020614/e9f2e2d5/attachment.bin

On Fri, 14 Jun 2002, Buchan Milne wrote:
> Attached are patches to makefile.in and configure.in that add an 
> additional variable (LDAPLIBS) to the Makefile, and adds LDAPLIBS for 
> the binaries that seem to need to link to libldap
Applying it now....




cheers, jerry