> "Brian" == Brian May <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Brian> foo-dev (2.1) /usr/include/foo.h /usr/lib/libfoo.so ->
Brian> libfoo.so.2.1
For everyone concerned: versions of libtool already support this.
eg. cvs version of libtool 1.4, and cvs tree for libtool 1.3x (not
sure if includes t
On 5 Feb 2001, Brian May wrote:
> Marcelo> Jason's is actually a valid question concerning this
> Marcelo> thread.
>
> Well, sorry if I misunderstood the question, but I interpreted it as
My question was retorical. I know the answer is 'because it is too lame to
become a no-op on SUS c
> "Marcelo" == Marcelo E Magallon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Marcelo> Jason's is actually a valid question concerning this
Marcelo> thread.
Well, sorry if I misunderstood the question, but I interpreted it as
"why does libltdl need libx.la instead of loading libx.so directly?"
Wel
>> Brian May <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Jason> Does anyone know *why* libtool requires this? It strikes me
> Jason> as totally unnecessary for runtime linking on linux. Maybe
> Jason> someone should fix libltdl.
>
> Lets not get off-topic into a flame war over "why does libtoo
> "Frank" == Frank Belew <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Frank> --snip -- You have to watch this one. We've found that
Frank> things like rep require the la in the main package, not the
Frank> dev due to linking to libltdl. This one was somewhat hard
Frank> to discover since everyo
> "Jason" == Jason Gunthorpe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Jason> Does anyone know *why* libtool requires this? It strikes me
Jason> as totally unnecessary for runtime linking on linux. Maybe
Jason> someone should fix libltdl.
Lets not get off-topic into a flame war over "why does l
On 4 Feb 2001, Brian May wrote:
> Frank> --snip -- You have to watch this one. We've found that
> Frank> things like rep require the la in the main package, not the
> Frank> dev due to linking to libltdl. This one was somewhat hard
> Frank> to discover since everyone always seems t
> "Frank" == Frank Belew <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Frank> --snip -- You have to watch this one. We've found that
Frank> things like rep require the la in the main package, not the
Frank> dev due to linking to libltdl. This one was somewhat hard
Frank> to discover since everyo
On 03 Feb 2001 10:59:01 +1100, Brian May wrote:
> > "Brian" == Brian May <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> Brian> However, this exposes other issues, since the version of
> Brian> *.la required depends on the version of the library
> Brian> required, however only one copy of the *.la
> "Brian" == Brian May <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Brian> However, this exposes other issues, since the version of
Brian> *.la required depends on the version of the library
Brian> required, however only one copy of the *.la file can be
Brian> installed, while a number of diffe
> "Ben" == Ben Collins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Ben> So? This makes things consistent, and much easier to track
Ben> bugs and problems. Your proposal would make things really
Ben> difficult to track bugs "The bug only shows up when I have
Ben> libfoo1_1.0 and libfoo-dev_0.9
> "Marcelo" == Marcelo E Magallon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Marcelo> I don't think I understand what you mean by manage here.
Marcelo> You can't prevent users from running 'ldconfig'. If you
Marcelo> run 'ldconfig' it will read the sonames and place
Marcelo> symlinks to the
> "Marcelo" == Marcelo E Magallon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Marcelo> libfoo-dev (2.1-1) was compiled with libbar-dev (1.1-1).
Marcelo> libbar1 (1.1-1) exists in unstable and libbar1 (1.0-1)
Marcelo> exists in stable. Due to bad judgement, libbar1 (1.1-1)
Marcelo> (and libba
Marcelo E. Magallon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I don't think I understand what you mean by manage here. You can't
> prevent users from running 'ldconfig'. If you run 'ldconfig' it will
> read the sonames and place symlinks to the "newer versions" of the
> library.
If you've got both fo
>> Herbert Xu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > > and allow shlibs with different minor version numbers to be installed
> > > together by encoding it into the package name. Of course, we'll have
> > > to manage /usr/lib/libfoo.so.2 dynamically as well.
>
> > Break the second you run ldcon
On Sat, Jan 27, 2001 at 01:40:48AM +, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Ben Collins writes ("Bug#83669: Shared libraries"):
> > On Fri, Jan 26, 2001 at 07:34:08PM +, Ian Jackson wrote:
> > >
> > > foo-dev (2.1) /usr/include/foo.h
> > > /
On Fri, Jan 26, 2001 at 08:34:07PM -0600, David Engel wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 26, 2001 at 03:04:22PM -0500, Ben Collins wrote:
> > Can we say archive, system, mirror and update bloat horror!? DO you
>
> My very rough estimate would be about 300 MB per distribution. Not
> insignificant, but not compl
Marcelo E. Magallon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> Herbert Xu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > and allow shlibs with different minor version numbers to be installed
> > together by encoding it into the package name. Of course, we'll have
> > to manage /usr/lib/libfoo.so.2 dynamically as well.
>> Brian May <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> If so, what is the problem with installing the unstable version of
> libl6? Oh, you explain it here.
>
> Ian> L-dev from unstable, but then when you compile S it ends up
> Ian> needing the L from unstable.
Ugh. I finally understand the in
>> Herbert Xu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> and allow shlibs with different minor version numbers to be installed
> together by encoding it into the package name. Of course, we'll have
> to manage /usr/lib/libfoo.so.2 dynamically as well.
Break the second you run ldconfig. Plus the fact tha
On Sat, 27 Jan 2001, Brian May wrote:
> > "Henrique" == Henrique M Holschuh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Henrique> In other words, if this bug is deemed to be correct, we
> Henrique> will have to add hard-link support to dpkg and
> Henrique> .debs. Anything else will simply DOUBLE
> "Brian" == Brian May <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
I previously misunderstood Herbert's proposal, here it is again (I
hope it is accurate this time...).
foo2.0 (2.0) /usr/lib/libfoo.so.2.0 (actual library)
Provides: foo2 version 2.0
foo2.1 (2.1) /usr/lib/libfoo.so.2.1 (actual library)
Provi
> "Manoj" == Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Manoj> Hi, We seem to be balancing 300MB for all archives,
Look at Herbert's proposal - it doesn't require any extra space,
except for storing multiple versions of the library (which could be
done privately too, if Debian doesn't w
Hi,
We seem to be balancing 300MB for all archives, mirrors,
transfers, CD's, everyone downloading packages, etc, against the
requirements of a few developers who need to create debs for
libraries older than those they are running? And who could always
create a chroot jail for themselv
> "Henrique" == Henrique M Holschuh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Henrique> In other words, if this bug is deemed to be correct, we
Henrique> will have to add hard-link support to dpkg and
Henrique> .debs. Anything else will simply DOUBLE the already
Henrique> bloated */lib and t
>>"Ian" == Ian Jackson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Ian> The net effect is that nearly all packages in Debian are compiled
Ian> against the libraries from unstable, and that it's hard for a
Ian> developer running mostly unstable to build packages for stable.
The conventional solution fo
On Fri, Jan 26, 2001 at 08:34:07PM -0600, David Engel wrote:
>
> I think this would be more trouble than it's worth. Not only would
That's probably true.
> packagers have to deal with all of the possible overlaps between
> packages, it would also potentially add even more packages to the
> arch
> "Herbert" == Herbert Xu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Herbert> Ian Jackson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Currently, wrt shared libraries, we mandate (or do) this:
>> foo2 (2.1) /usr/lib/libfoo.so.2 -> libfoo.so.2.1
>> /usr/lib/libfoo.so.2.1 (actual library)
>> foo-dev (2.
On Fri, 26 Jan 2001, Ben Collins wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 26, 2001 at 07:34:08PM +, Ian Jackson wrote:
> > foo-dev (2.1) /usr/include/foo.h
> > /usr/lib/libfoo.so (copy of actual library)
>
> Can we say archive, system, mirror and update bloat horror!? DO you
> reali
> "Ian" == Ian Jackson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Ian> In general, it's not safe to use a minor version of a library
Ian> lower than that with which the binary was compiled.
Ian> So you if you have a library L used by both an program S
Ian> which you want to compile for stabl
On Fri, Jan 26, 2001 at 03:04:22PM -0500, Ben Collins wrote:
> Can we say archive, system, mirror and update bloat horror!? DO you
My very rough estimate would be about 300 MB per distribution. Not
insignificant, but not completely untenable either.
> This is bad, and creates plenty of problems
Ben Collins writes ("Bug#83669: Shared libraries"):
> On Fri, Jan 26, 2001 at 07:34:08PM +, Ian Jackson wrote:
> >
> > foo-dev (2.1) /usr/include/foo.h
> > /usr/lib/libfoo.so (copy of actual library)
> >
>
> Can we s
Brian May writes ("Re: Bug#83669: Shared libraries"):
> You seem to imply that the versions of the libraries are incompatible,
> despite having the same major version. If this is really the case, I
> think the potential exists to break a lot more then just the build
> proces
> "Seth" == Seth Arnold <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Seth> How does this work with the glibc mess I seem to recall from
Seth> about a month ago?
I don't recall the details - can somebody please give me a URL?
--
Brian May <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* Brian May <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [010126 15:32]:
> Please give me a real life example of why distinguishing libraries
> solely by their major version number is not good enough...
How does this work with the glibc mess I seem to recall from about a
month ago?
--
``Oh Lord; Ooh you are so big; So a
> "Ian" == Ian Jackson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Ian> The effect is that foo-dev (2.1) has to have a dependency on
Ian> foo2 (2.1) because otherwise you might compile against a .so
Ian> file and headers from different versions.
Ian> This is bad because it makes it hard to up
Ian Jackson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Currently, wrt shared libraries, we mandate (or do) this:
> foo2 (2.1) /usr/lib/libfoo.so.2 -> libfoo.so.2.1
> /usr/lib/libfoo.so.2.1 (actual library)
> foo-dev (2.1) /usr/include/foo.h
> /usr/lib/l
On Fri, Jan 26, 2001 at 07:34:08PM +, Ian Jackson wrote:
>
> foo-dev (2.1) /usr/include/foo.h
> /usr/lib/libfoo.so (copy of actual library)
>
Can we say archive, system, mirror and update bloat horror!? DO you
realize what this would mean for lib packages like
Package: debian-policy
Version: 3.2.1.2
(We've had this argument before, and it degenerated into the policy
process row. It seems that Wichert is unwilling to act to fix the
process, so I'll just reopen the issue like this. I can't find it in
the archives anywhere.)
Currently, wrt shared librar
39 matches
Mail list logo
