libtool
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

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

Re: RFC: proposal for indirect deplibs


From: Ralf Wildenhues
Subject: Re: RFC: proposal for indirect deplibs
Date: Sat, 27 Nov 2004 20:03:43 +0100
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.6+20040722i

* Gary V. Vaughan wrote on Sat, Nov 27, 2004 at 07:47:35PM CET:
> Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
> >* Albert Chin wrote on Fri, Nov 26, 2004 at 10:09:31PM CET:
> >
> >My proposal: On systems with "smart linker": for every interface
> >change, only update the set of libraries and programs exposed to
> >this change.  (That is, if we can come up with a sane set of
> >semantics.)
> 
> I'm right behind you for this one, and think that it would be a huge
> value add for libtool-2.2 -- as long as we heed the caveats pointed
> out by Bob.

OK.

> >What's more, there is precedence here: Debian's libtool makes use of
> >link_all_deplibs=no.  I would like something much more conservative
> >than this overall trust in library authors, but something better
> >than having libtool guess what ultimatively cannot be guessed.
> 
> s/precedence/precedent/ (prod me if you hate having your grammar
> corrected, like wot I do, and I'll stop it)

On the contrary.  See below.

> >Actually, I also believe that it's a good thing to support the
> >enhanced features that a GNU system (which GNU libtool is part of)
> >can offer, if (and only if) we can support them in a portable,
> >backward-compatible and smoothly-declining (does this word make
> >sense?) fashion.  E.g., I'd like versioned symbols as well, but
> >they seem to be impossible to realize while fulfilling the last
> >mentioned property.
> 
> "degrading gracefully" is the term I have always used.

Thanks a lot.  I sat here for minutes trying to think of this
expression.  Literally.  And after I couldn't get any helpful clues
from dict.leo.org, I reckoned I'd just send it anyway, people will
understand.  But yes, I do very much appreciate being corrected for
language/spelling and stuff.  How else should I get rid of my
mistakes?

> Open Source
> is almost always an evolutionary process, so we can only take it one
> step at a time... best of all, if we step out of line, it is usually
> easy to get back on track and try again with something else :-)

ACK.  And it's all been words so far only, I won't think of
implementation until afterwards (can you tell I'm not a physicist?).

You know what: I think I did it.  I got static linux-dietlibc working
here, except for some minor details.  Took long, found ugly bugs, hate
the fact that I was not stubborn enough to apply the libltdl `clean
parsing' patch back then.  Will have to wait until tomorrow, though,
booze is waiting.

Cheers,
Ralf




reply via email to

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