On Thursday 11 March 2004 6:31 pm, Nick Harring wrote:
> On Thu, 2004-03-11 at 16:48, Chris Ess wrote:
> > On Thu, 11 Mar 2004, Ken Jones wrote:
> > > On Thursday 11 March 2004 4:22 pm, Tom Collins wrote:
> > [snip]
> > > > I'm not sure that there's a need to disable the shared library option
> > > > -- I'd like to always build it.
> > >
> > > I'd like to be able to disable shared libraries.
> > > I like not having run time linking each time vchkpw and vdelivermail
> > > are run. I'd rather link once at compile time. Makes it just-a-bit-more
> > > efficent. The only thing it would save me is recompiling vpopmail
> > > dependent libraries on an update, and that's not a big deal for me.
> > I see where Mr. Jones is coming from and I agree. However, I also see
> > where having a shared library could be better. (See, for instance, the
> > recurring theme on this list of "I just recompiled vpopmail and now
> > qmail doesn't work/users can't authenticate through courier-imap/other
> > stuff is broken now.")
> Disabling should definitely remain an option since I've both done all
> the work, and the bulk of the work was done by autoconf by automagically
> supporting --disable-foo for every --enable-foo with a case statement
> and some ifs.
> The next issue is the bugaboo of performance.
Excellent work! It's great to have real numbers on performance.
And I like the idea that we will support both.