[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: normal ltdl linking suggestions?

From: Gary V. Vaughan
Subject: Re: normal ltdl linking suggestions?
Date: Sun, 15 Jul 2007 18:47:53 -0400

Hallo Andreas,

On Jul 15, 2007, at 6:21 PM, Andreas Jellinghaus wrote:
On Saturday 14 July 2007 00:05:32 Gary V. Vaughan wrote:
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

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?

That will break somewhere for sure.

M4's trick is to wrap the ltdl api in its own m4_module_{,un}load calls
and tell other modules to use that.

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.

ACK.  No reason to hide the fact that libltdl is under the hood, and ask
module developers not to load a conflicting one.

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.

ACK 2. I was thinking that in 10 years time it might be hard to hook the
old M4 up with exactly the right release of libltdl and not have *that*
ltdl conflict with the one other apps want.  Hence I wrapped and shipped
the particular flavour I wanted.

Thanks and regards, Andreas

  ())_.              Email me: address@hidden
  ( '/           Read my blog:
  / )=         ...and my book:
`(_~)_      Join my AGLOCO Network:

Attachment: PGP.sig
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

reply via email to

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