>> 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 them. >> 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 >turmoil.
>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 better. 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. Cheers, Nick