No problem, I've dealt with Sam before and I know the stress and pain which is caused by such an encounter :). What version of courier are you trying to compile? I'll download it and let you know. I haven't look at the configure script for the new version. Typically, i make a build script which contains the following:
#!/bin/bash LDFLAGS="-L/usr/local/lib -L/usr/lib" export LDFLAGS ./configure --prefix=/usr/local/courier --with-waitfunc=wait3 \ --without-authpwd --without-authshadow --without-authpam \ --without-authuserdb --without-authcram --without-authvchkpw \ --without-authmysql --without-authdaemon --without-authcustom and you'll also want to be sure that you've configured crle to read look in /usr/local/lib for runtime linking. You can do that with the following command: crle -i /usr/lib -i /usr/local/lib -l /usr/lib -l /usr/local/lib keep in mind that the order is important. If you'd prefer the runtime linker to search /usr/local/lib first (which you may want to do if you want it to use your ldap libs), you will need to switch the order. Alternatively, you can use: LDFLAGS="-L/usr/local/lib -L/usr/lib -R/usr/local/lib -R/usr/lib" to hardcode the lib search path into the binary. Let me know what version you're trying to compile and i'll give it a shot. I link against the OpenLDAP libraries here. eric On Tue, 26 Feb 2002, Scott Pestana wrote: > Thanks for replying with this information, I'll note this with regard the wait > issue. > > But as is, I'm about at my wits end with courier. I'm trying to compile for > Solaris 2.8 and can't get the configure scripts to detect my ldap libraries that > I installed specifically for this product. No matter where they are, the script > just won't detect them, and therefore won't generate the authldap module which > our site needs to use as authentication (PAM works superficially, but can't carry > the necessary information about maildir= for users). Have you had any experience > with this situation? Mr. Varshavchik has replied to my queries, but in a > confusing manner that has yet to provide any clear information about how to fix > this problem. > > Scott Pestana > > Eric Kilfoil wrote: > > > I doubt anyone cares about this, but i feel that it's at least worth > > saying. The wait() bug that Sam refers to is not the same bug that is > > tickled by the configure script. > > > > It seems silly to search for a bug and find something vaguely similar to > > the problem mentioned, and then blame it on that bug. The solaris patch > > offered by sun has no relevance on the problem with courier. It is a > > different issue. > > > > On a side note, i've been using courier in a high-load (approx 5-10 > > POP requests per second) environment for about a year now, and I have not > > experienced any issues. Your mileage may vary. > > > > eric > > > > On Sat, 26 Jan 2002, Sam Varshavchik wrote: > > > > > Scott Pestana writes: > > > > > > > Does anyone know if this situation will cause a problem once this > > > > goes into production? > > > > > > Yes it will, under extremely high load. Since the test script managed to > > > trigger a bug before the 248 days are up, it's only a matter of time before > > > you get nailed. I don't have anything firm that indicates what exactly is > > > broken, just a general note stating to apply all of Sun's recommended > > > patches to Solaris. > > > > > > > > > -- > > > Sam > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > courier-users mailing list > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/courier-users > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ courier-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe: https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/courier-users
