On Wed, Feb 06, 2008 at 09:18:13PM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote: > Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > On Sun, Feb 03, 2008 at 06:02:34PM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
> >> Can't we just link back_meta against back_ldap? Or is that what your > >> fix for the problem does? > > Yeah, that's the fix; but libtool --install blows up nastily when you > > link against something that's not a system library, *and* has a name > > that doesn't begin with "lib", because -lback_ldap doesn't work very > > well for relinking... :) > I wonder if it would be worthwhile to live with the code duplication and > namespace pollution and use libltdl in convenience mode instead of > installable mode with slapd. That would basically cause slapd to use > RTLD_GLOBAL, correct? It would resolve the issue with back-perl and also > with back-meta, at the cost of namespace pollution only for slapd plugins > and things they load. > Of course, that means that if someone tries to use a Perl module that uses > unixodbc via back-perl, we probably lose again for all the same reasons > that Debian moved away from RTLD_GLOBAL in the first place, but it might > be a workaround. Hmm, now that we're build-depending on UnixODBC instead of iODBC, it might also cause problems for back_sql. If you think this is the right solution otherwise, we could revert back to iodbc for the time being. (I seem to have a bug to shake out there anyway, openldap2.3 as it stands seems to be missing a build-conflicts with libiodbc2...) -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. Ubuntu Developer http://www.debian.org/ [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
