Re: FYI & question: Linux-PAM modules on Solaris

[Jonathan Sturges <jonathan sprintmail com>]

> Subject: Re: FYI & question: Linux-PAM modules on Solaris
> Date: Fri, 25 May 2001 10:03:39 -0700
> From: Andrew Morgan <morgan@transmeta.com>
> Reply-To: pam-list@redhat.com
> Organization: Transmeta Corporation
> To: pam-list@redhat.com
> References: <3B0D7DFA.49451E79@sprintmail.com>
> 
> Jonathan Sturges wrote:
> 
> > 272,273c272,273
> > <       LD_D="ld -G -z redlocsym"
> > <       LD_L="ld -G -z redlocsym"
> > ---
> > >       LD_D="gcc -shared -Xlinker -x"
> > >       LD_L="$LD -x -shared"
> 
> What does this look like as a 'diff -u' patch? (This gives me a little
> more context.)
> 
> Here is a diff against CVS top of trunk, it looks a little different to
> yours, but does it work for you?
> 
> Index: configure.in
> ===================================================================
> RCS file: /cvsroot/pam/Linux-PAM/configure.in,v
> retrieving revision 1.16
> diff -u -r1.16 configure.in
> --- configure.in        2001/05/08 05:02:50     1.16
> +++ configure.in        2001/05/25 17:01:45
> @@ -319,8 +319,8 @@
>         PIC="-K pic"
>         DYNTYPE=so
>         LD=ld
> -       LD_D="cc -z text -G -R."
> -       LD_L="$LD_D"
> +       LD_D="ld -G -z redlocsym"
> +       LD_L="ld -G -z redlocsym"
>         RANLIB=ranlib
>         STRIP=strip
>         CC_STATIC=
> 
> Thanks
> 
> Andrew

Andrew,
Sorry for the delay, but Sun's diff doesn't support -u, so I had to go get
GNU diffutils.  The diff you sent me seems to be from a newer version of
configure.in; maybe from a current development tree, not 0.75 release?  At
any rate, it would not apply (note: I'm using GNU patch v2.5.4).
Anyway, here's GNU 'diff -u' output from my system:

--- Linux-PAM-0.75-clean/configure.in   Sun Mar 18 20:56:36 2001
+++ Linux-PAM-0.75-good/configure.in    Wed May 23 15:48:04 2001
@@ -269,8 +269,8 @@
        PIC="-fPIC"
 #can/should we use LD=gcc ???
        LD=ld
-       LD_D="gcc -shared -Xlinker -x"
-       LD_L="$LD -x -shared"
+       LD_D="ld -G -z redlocsym"
+       LD_L="ld -G -z redlocsym"
        RANLIB=ranlib
        STRIP=strip
        CC_STATIC="-Xlinker -export-dynamic"

Remember, however, that 'configure' seems to fail after applying this to
configure.in.  I don't know why.
The way I originally did this was to reverse-engineer it:  after running
configure with a stock configure.in, I then patched LD_D and LD_L in
Make.Rules by hand, and deduced that the LD_D and LD_L values came from
configure.in.  Therefore, if my process or assumptions are flawed, that may
explain why it breaks configure.  :)

thanks,
Jonathan