[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: address@hidden: Re: [Mesa3d-dev] Re: libtool]
From: |
Marcelo E. Magallon |
Subject: |
Re: address@hidden: Re: [Mesa3d-dev] Re: libtool] |
Date: |
Thu, 7 Jun 2001 23:30:22 +0200 |
User-agent: |
Mutt/1.3.18i |
>> address@hidden writes:
> So the 1.2 is "static"? Have you looked at -release? I don't know what
> this will do to the SONAME though. It won't give you the name above
> but close enough (libGL-1.2.xxyyzz.so).
This is the problem. In this case the soname *must* be libGL.so.1 (on
Linux). The problem is that the library is provided by several
vendors, and a sane development environment is needed: if I compile foo
with a particular vendor's version it must run with all the others.
The exposed interface is well defined and this level of compatibility
is achievable. Mesa is unique in that it's available for a multitude
of platforms. Linux is the only one where this issue is critical (it'd
be nice if Mesa used the native libgl's soname on every platfrom, but
it's just a minor issue)
What Mesa needs from libtool is libtool's knowledge about multiple
platform's oddities regarding compilation and linking, but it also
needs a way to be able to set the soname. Yes, this is bad in general.
It defeats the whole purpose of libtool, but the problem is that Mesa
is providing another version of an existing library. I can imagine
things like Motif (lesstif), OpenInventor (Coin, mostly non issue now)
are in the same situation.
--
Marcelo