On Mon, Nov 22, 2010 at 22:20, O. Hartmann <ohart...@mail.zedat.fu-berlin.de> wrote: > On 11/22/10 19:20, Andrew W. Nosenko wrote: >> >> On Fri, Nov 19, 2010 at 19:28, O. Hartmann >> <ohart...@mail.zedat.fu-berlin.de> wrote: >>> >>> On 11/19/10 18:11, Andrew W. Nosenko wrote: >>>> >>>> 2010/11/19 O. Hartmann<ohart...@zedat.fu-berlin.de>: >>>>> >>>>> On 11/19/10 13:46, Koop Mast wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> On Fri, 19 Nov 2010 12:32:33 +0100 >>>>>> "O. Hartmann"<ohart...@zedat.fu-berlin.de> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Hello. >>>>>>> Trying to do my first port and run into trouble. >>>>>>> The software package (Xerces-c 3.1.1) comes with a full autotoll >>>>>>> environment and so far building and installing works. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> But the libarary name is "libxerces-c-3.1.so" and I need to change >>>>>>> this >>>>>>> to respect the FreeBSD nameing schemes to "libxerces-c.so.31". I'm >>>>>>> looking for a way avoiding some "post-install:" stuff. >>>>>> >>>>>> There isn't any problem with the libxerces-c-3.1.so name. >>>>>> From >>>>>> http://www.freebsd.org/doc/en/books/porters-handbook/special.html >>>>>> Try to keep shared library version numbers in the libfoo.so.0 format. >>>>>> Our runtime linker only cares for the major (first) number. >>>>> >>>>> Well, this is the problem. The automated installation process installes >>>>> libxerces-c-3.1.so. >>>> >>>> This not a problem. Inability to catch the libxerces-c-3.1.so by >>>> specifying -lxerces-c linker flag (and enforce you to specify >>>> -lxerces-c-3.1) is intended and desired effect. Please, don't touch >>>> the library name. >>>> >>>> Usually, authors change library name if want to ensure and express >>>> complete API and ABI break without any forward and backward >>>> compatibility. Like switch from Glib-1.x (libglib.so.x) to Glib-2.x >>>> (libglib-2.0.so.x). In both your (libxerces) and my (libglib) >>>> examples the authors desired to use "interface generation" numbers, >>>> but it just for aesthetics reasons, indeed the libraries could be >>>> renamed to any other arbitrary way (for example, libNewGlib.so and >>>> libEvenBetterXerces.so -- ideologically and technically there no >>>> differences). >>>> >>>> If you rename libxerces-c-3.1.so to libxerces-c.so.31, then all >>>> application that want and expect the old "zero-generation" API and >>>> link against '-llibxerces-c' will fail because will catch absolutely >>>> unexpected (by them) and incompatible libxerces-c-3.1 API. >>>> >>>> Applications that indeed want and expect libxerces-c-3.1 API, and >>>> therefore that links with '-llibxerces-c-3.1' will fail also. Just >>>> because there no more libxerces-c-3.1.so library -- it was renamed to >>>> unexpected name w/o good reasons. >>>> >>>> Conclusion: Please, don't touch library names! >>>> >>> >>> Well, maybe here is a misunderstanding. >> >> Sure. See below. >> >>> I'd like to come along with FreeBSD's library naming scheme when >>> installing >>> the library into /usr/local/lib. I thought manipulating the >>> source-environment when compiling would be the least-efford way, but I >>> see, >>> maybe it would be easier to come along with a post-install: target by >>> simply >>> moving and making a symbolic link. If so, I need to detect by the >>> framework >>> what the lib vendor has choosen as thi lib name, to automate the proceed >>> perfectly. Is this possible? >>> >> >> Seems, like you think that Xerces authors use libNAME-VER.so naming >> scheme, while FreeBSD uses libNAME.so.VER ... > > Well, after building a vanilla xerces-c version 3.1.1 and checked the > vendor's point of view how the lib should be named, I guess my thinking is > right about libNAME-VER.so. Simply try download and compile/install the > sources from http://xerces.apache.org/xerces-c/. > >> >> Ineed it's simple not true. Both uses libNAME.so[.VER]. > > I doubt this, or I do something stupid everytime again and again.
Yes. You mess the package version (3.1 oe 3.1.1 in your case) with the ABI version (.0 or empty, in this case AFAIU). > >> Usually, libNAME.so.VER with greatest VER symlinked to libNAME.so. >> How VER represented (it just a number, or more complicated like .N, >> .N.M., .N.M.K... -- depends on the ld.so implementation on the target >> system and usually should not bother you as software author (if you >> use Libtool, which is good in job of hiding differences between >> systems in that respect). >> >> Also, these .N[.M[.K]] represent the ABI version of library and has >> nothing with package version. >> >> Just in the case of Xerces, the NAME contains digits that looks like >> version (version of package). But indeed, the NAME in your case _is_ >> "libxerces-c-3.1". I unable to say what ABI version VER is without >> building Xerces-C, or upstream authors decided to left it empty >> indeed, sorry. >> > > > The new xerces-c 3.1.1 comes with a whole/complete autotools-environment. > There is a m4-folder containing libtool.m4. I tried to patch this in the > section "freebsd-elf*" and "freebsd-*" to reflect the naming scheme FreeBSD > uses (libNAME.so.VER). I tried several variations, but it seems that Simple don't touch and you will comply! The NAME part here is "xerces-c-3.1". Not NAME="xerces-c" and VER="3.1" but NAME="xerces-c-3.1" and VER is empty. Again: "3.1" is the part of NAME! > something from the ports toplevel Makefile isn't triggering a > reconfiguration the right way. > > I did the same with the toplevel ./configure file which already contains the > libtool.m4-macro substitutions, but again, it doesn't seem to be possible to > change the libname that gets installed. > > I tried forcing triggering a aclocal/autoconf procedure via USE_AUTOTOOLS= > butthis results surprisingly in a linker error. > > My intention is to manipulate the installed library and the symbolic link > that way that it is clean in the sense of low complication post-install > manipulations. > > xerces-c and xerces-c2 are already in the ports collection and I need a > collision-free xerces-c3, so renaming the installed library is important. Again: just don't touch the library name and you will collision free from the library names point of view: xerces-c2 has no libxerces-c-3.1.so. But there lives another problem: Xerces people doesn't expect parallel installation of the "evelopment" part of Xerces-C (headers, pkg-config, etc). At least it seems so by listing the libxerces-c package from Ubuntu. I see three variants: (1) simple: just mark these ports (c2 and c3) as conflicting, (2) semi-simple: split each xerces-c port at the two: run-time and development. Runtime contains a shered library, development contains anything other. Mark development parts as conflictitng. (3) move each port away from each other's way: move headers into own versioned deirectory (e.g. from include/xercesc/ to insclude/xercesc-3.1/xercesc/), drop libxerces-c.so (if any -- I don't know), rename pkg-config (.pc) file, and static library (if any), may be something yet another, like documentation -- need to look at the actual install. All these changes hidden from the users through pkg-config's .pc, therefore only one problem for developers will be changed (non-standard name of the .pc file, i.e. pkg-config's module). But ATM I see no better way to allow parallel installation of the packages that aren't intended for parallel installation by theirs authors... > > I thought I could pass some environment variables to the autotool > environment when building via a port's top level Makefile, but this seems to > be impossible. > -- Andrew W. Nosenko <andrew.w.nose...@gmail.com> _______________________________________________ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
