[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: RFC: proposal for indirect deplibs
From: |
Bob Friesenhahn |
Subject: |
Re: RFC: proposal for indirect deplibs |
Date: |
Wed, 24 Nov 2004 19:47:54 -0600 (CST) |
On Wed, 24 Nov 2004, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
Definitions:
direct dependency:
A program or library has a direct dependency on a library, if it depends
on some interface that library provides, see node Interfaces for a more
thorough description.
More classifications should applied for "direct dependency".
Symbolic dependencies are obvious since the linker knows about them.
Dependencies introduced by header files (library A uses headers and
symbols from library B, but headers from library B include headers
from library C) may introduce a dependency that the linker does not
know about. How would this be handled?
indirect dependency:
A program or library has an indirect dependency on a library, if it does
not depend on any interfaces of the library itself, but some
intermittent dependency library depends on such an interface.
I believe that "intermittent" is a wrong use of the word.
This has lead to subtle problems on such systems when dependent
libraries are recompiled against different versions of its dependencies.
Multiple versions of a library may be linked in the same output,
resulting in a broken link.
Note that even if only one version of a library is linked at a time,
there can still be problems if other libraries used a different
library.
- All dependencies picked up from libtool libraries (.la files) are
treated as indirect dependencies.
So any .la file specified in an Automake-based build becomes an
indirect dependency? That doesn't seem right.
Bob
======================================
Bob Friesenhahn
address@hidden
http://www.simplesystems.org/users/bfriesen