On Fri, Nov 25, 2005 at 11:03:42AM -0600, Scot Hetzel wrote: > On 11/21/05, Wojciech A. Koszek <dunstan_at_freebsd.czest.pl> wrote: > > Hello, > > > > Is there any reason why we couldn't have LDADD honored in "buildworld" > > process? If there are no negative implications, I volunteer to do the > > work. I'd find it really useful. > > > What do you want to link the base system with? > > Currently, the base sendmail can be linked with the > security/cyrus-sasl* ports by setting: > > # SENDMAIL_CFLAGS=-I/usr/local/include -DSASL2 > # SENDMAIL_LDFLAGS=-L/usr/local/lib > # SENDMAIL_LDADD=-lsasl2 > > in /etc/make.conf. You could possibly link sendmail with one of the > openldap ports also. Haven't tried it myself yet. > > Note: This may cause a busted sendmail, especially during a major > version upgrade. A rebuild of the security/cyrus-sasl* port, and > sendmail will fix it. Hello, Sorry for late response. Truly speaking I want to use this functionality to link basesystem with alternative malloc(9) implementation, just like this from libefence. This is how I discovered one of the allocation problems in FreeBSD basesystem. Doing this kind of tests does not work in some cases when LD_* variables are used. Looking at recent posts, I think new malloc implementation (patch posted by Jason Evans) could also be tested in this way. I also use SENDMAIL_* macros and although difficulties you've written about, choice. I think it's advantage to have them. And please note, that it's system administrator choice to play with custom libraries. -- * Wojciech A. Koszek && dunstan_at_FreeBSD.czest.plReceived on Tue Nov 29 2005 - 16:30:40 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wed May 19 2021 - 11:38:48 UTC