Re: tcp wrappers

[Charles Wilson <cwilson at ece dot gatech dot edu>]

Prentis Brooks wrote:


>>Hmm.  I wonder if it would be worthwhile to make the wrapper library a
>>DLL.
>>
> 
> I would rather we didn't, primarily because the modification to make tcp
> wrappers work with Cygwin was simplistic.  In fact, at this point the
> modification is only to the Makefile, plus a line in one another file.  
> It is my understanding from Mumit Khan that the tcp wrappers author is
> going to incorporate this patch into the next release of tcp wrap.
> Taking that into consideration, wouldn't turning the libwrap into a DLL
> cause a (kind of) branch?


Not really.  re-libtoolizing the source dir (tcp is libtoolized, I 
think) using our cygwinized devel version of libtool is a "builder" 
issue, not really a source code issue.

(In the old days, making a DLL required intrusive and exhausting changes 
to lots and lots of source files -- __declspec(dllexport) this, 
__declspec(dllexport that)... -- but no longer.) With auto-import 
binutils, and the libtool-devel package, you merely:

rm ldconfig.sh
rm ltmain.sh
   << edit configure.in and make sure that
   it AC_PREREQ's 2.50 or greater >>
libtoolize --force -c
aclocal ( possibly need to add '-I some-subdir')
automake --force -a
autoconf

And then configure/make as usual -- an poof! DLL AND static lib.

Okay, maybe it's not QUITE that easy, but it's close.  You do need to 
understand the autotools and maybe read a few man pages, but...

Still, this is a maintainer decision. If you don't want to DLLize, that 
is your prerogative.  No complaints from me.

--Chuck