[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: normal ltdl linking suggestions?

From: Andreas Jellinghaus
Subject: Re: normal ltdl linking suggestions?
Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2007 00:21:16 +0200
User-agent: KMail/1.9.6

On Saturday 14 July 2007 00:05:32 Gary V. Vaughan wrote:
> It won't work on at least several platforms... possibly not on any
> platform.
> Certainly duplicate symbols from different versions of the same
> library will
> cause runtime problems even if the linker doesn't raise a red flag.

ok, thanks. I guess that using a shared library and suggesting
noone links in the same code as static code or otherwise is the
best way. might not work on all plattform, but the ABI in question might be 
not specified with all plattforms (or the plattform might miss some feature 
needed to implement it).

> Another way to do it is like CVS HEAD m4: it provides a library that
> is in
> turn linked against the bundled libltdl, and all plugins must link
> against
> that library to ensure they are all calling the same libltdl.

well, but if foo is compiled and installed into /opt/foo, and bar 
into /opt/bar, we might end up with different libltdl in both /opt/foo/lib 
and /opt/bar/lib, and if some application uses both foo and bar, what will 
happen again?

sure, it is nice to not bother the user and not even mention libltdl, but 
simply include it and install it. but an honest install document will mention 
that foo includes and installs libltdl and mentions problems like above. and 
if the admin reads that documentation and checks the system to avoid it, then 
in total he might have spend more time than if the package simply said "needs 
libltdl, please install it first".

but that is my personal guess and preference, doesn't need to be yours.

Thanks and regards, Andreas

reply via email to

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