On Thu, Jan 09, 2025 at 04:27:42PM +0000, Gavin Smith wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 09, 2025 at 12:40:40AM +0100, Patrice Dumas wrote:
> > > 2. In Debian we installed the .la files into /usr/lib/texinfo/ until
> > > version
> > > 7.1.1 [3]. For the 7.2 packages [4] I skipped them: I could convert some
> > > files using texi2any, so no drawbacks visible until now.
> > >
> > > Are these files really needed?
> >
> > I think not, on GNU/Linux and for installed libraries, the dynamic
> > loading support and use of rpath should make sure that the libraries are
> > correctly found and loaded even without .la, and in our code we do not
> > error out if the .la is not found. In-source and probably for other
> > platforms the .la are needed.
>
> I don't believe this is correct.
>
> The .la files are needed for loading the XS modules (which is done by the
> module tp/Texinfo/XSLoader.pm, in 'load_libtool_library'). For example,
> Parsetexi.la is needed for loading Parsetexi.so.
Indeed you are right. For some reason I had imagined that the question
was only about the lib*.so.* files...
However, that makes me wonder if we shouldn't try to load directly the
loadable module if we are not in source. Indeed, my feeling is that
dlopened object name should be $module_name.extension, with extension
correctly guessed in the majority of cases by dl_findfile based on
$Config{dlext}.
This would only require to change load_libtool_library, such that it can
optionally try to load the module even if the .la file was not found,
and it would only be triggered if !$Texinfo::ModulePath::texinfo_uninstalled
and for $module_name (not for $additional_libraries).
This would make the .la files optional after installation on most
platforms, with .la only needed when the dlopened files have specific
names, for instance cygwin and MinGW, I guess.
--
Pat
