libtool
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[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




reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]