20 Mar
2017
20 Mar
'17
8:40 p.m.
All,
On 2017-03-20 21:34 +0100, Yann E. MORIN spake thusly:
I had a quick look at bLFS again, and they recommend building against
libtirpc:
http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/view/svn/basicnet/samba.html
So we may in the end be also able to switch entirely to using libtirpc.
Regards,
Yann E. MORIN.
--
.-----------------.--------------------.------------------.--------------------.
| Yann E. MORIN | Real-Time Embedded | /"\ ASCII RIBBON | Erics' conspiracy: |
| +33 662 376 056 | Software Designer | \ / CAMPAIGN | ___ |
| +33 223 225 172 `------------.-------: X AGAINST | \e/ There is no |
| http://ymorin.is-a-geek.org/ | _/*\_ | / \ HTML MAIL | v conspiracy. |
'------------------------------^-------^------------------^--------------------'
On 2017-03-20 20:51 +0100, Thomas Petazzoni spake
thusly:
> On Mon, 20 Mar 2017 18:21:45 +0100, Waldemar Brodkorb wrote:
> > What do you think about following patch?
> > We had some discussion about this recently on the buildroot
> > mailinglist. Any other use cases other than rpcbind/nfs-utils you
> > can think of?
> I had a quick look in Buildroot to see which packages currently only
> work with "native RPC" (i.e provided by the C library) and not with
> libtirpc.
[--SNIP--]
- samba4,
depends on BR2_TOOLCHAIN_HAS_NATIVE_RPC only
Given the size of the package, I doubt having it depends on glibc would
be too bad.
And when glibc actually drops their internal rpc, then samba will have
to add suopport for an alternative implementation.