>> Please, please, please don't spread FUD by even implicitly blaming the
>> vpopmail developers for this.  ;-)
>> I've seen *one* patch for this and, IIRC, it didn't apply cleanly to
>> the current version of vpopmail.  I worked on it a bit, and liked the
>> results, but delaying pushing it into the mainstream release.
Gee, wonder who's patch that was. And of course it didn't, I maintain that 
patch internally to my organization, but wasn't willing to do so publicly when 
it was made quite clear it was going nowhere fast with the vpopmail devs.
Besides, I seem to recall this being a 10-15 line patch for the makefile only, 
which I cooked up in about 20 minutes one afternoon while bored, so don't act 
like this is some monster task.
>> One problem is that some programs (including qmailadmin) actually make
>> use of information in the header files to conditionally compile its
>> code.  To truly move to a dynamic lib, we need to have any program
>> that links to libvpopmail do so without using vpopmail's config file. 
>> It's not as simple as just making the lib dynamic.
That qmailadmin needs the static libraries is hardly vpopmail's concern, 
especially for those of us without need for qmailadmin. qmail+chkuser and 
courier don't need any of this info, and the shared lib just works for both of 
>> What if we wrote an external program that chkuser could run instead of
>> having to link to libvpopmail?  Would that be a good solution.
No, it'd actually be horrible. You'd be adding an interface which would need a 
good bit of sanity checking to avoid opening a security hole, you'd be adding 
system overhead of fork+exec (admittedly minor, but its potentially done a 
couple hundred thousand times a day on a moderately busy server), and you'd be 
adding components for the sake of adding components.
>I have rebuilt everything after a vpopmail upgrade/downgrade several
>times in the last few months. It takes less than five minutes to
>recompile qmail-smtpd for chkuser. That is because I have to wait for
>qmail to finish. I sorry but this just doesn't take up a major part of
>my work week. I don't see the lack of a shared lib as cause for so much

>Some people would still build static linked binarys for
>performance/stability even if a shared lib was available. Me ;^)
Anybody who thinks linking statically gets them performance needs to 
re-evaluate their psychoactive drug regimen. 
I'm trying to find the email I sent to the list to combat exactly this myth, 
and while performance wasn't spectacularly better with the shared lib, it was 
I can't imagine how "stability" could be impacted either, its not like this is 
experimental new technology or anything. Besides, I doubt you really, genuinely 
build statically linked binaries, but instead build binaries linked statically 
against libvpopmail.


Reply via email to