* Howard Chu wrote on Mon, Nov 15, 2004 at 10:29:04PM CET:
> Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
> >* Gary V. Vaughan wrote on Mon, Nov 15, 2004 at 04:34:49PM CET:
>
> >>Also, what do we do about -rpath? We still need to encode the
> >>runtime path to even the dropped deplib directories so that the
> >>same l
¦±Ì[Ío^ÒÖÌ©®ÔM[Å·B
MûÌÂl¯ÊR[hÆ[AhXðFصïõo^ª®¹µÜµ½B
ñ©çͱ¿çæè²ü꺳¢B
http://www.eyc.jp/~apple/gallery.php?id=bGlidG9vbEBnbnUub3Jn
p¿àÍo^³ê½ú©çRúÈàɨUº³¢B
pKñ
http://www.eyc.jp/~a
On Tue, Nov 16, 2004 at 12:00:09AM -0500, Daniel Reed wrote:
> On 2004-11-15T20:33-0800, Jacob Meuser wrote:
> ) their packages as soon as possible. besides, it is arguable that
> ) libtool should be fairly well adapted to RedHat by default, the
> ) 1.5 branch has been around for a while now, and
On 2004-11-15T20:33-0800, Jacob Meuser wrote:
) their packages as soon as possible. besides, it is arguable that
) libtool should be fairly well adapted to RedHat by default, the
) 1.5 branch has been around for a while now, and you are still
) shipping patches?
Until 1.5.10, we were actually pat
On Mon, Nov 15, 2004 at 07:36:21PM -0500, Daniel Reed wrote:
> On 2004-11-15T17:19-0600, Bob Friesenhahn wrote:
> ) system incrementally. There is also the point that the libtool which
> ) comes with a Linux distribution has likely already been hacked to be
> ) more lenient. If FSF libtool become
On Mon, Nov 15, 2004 at 08:01:38PM -0600, Bob Friesenhahn wrote:
> On Mon, 15 Nov 2004, Jacob Meuser wrote:
> >
> >but this only works is all the libraries have .la files, right?
> >what happens if not all those libraries were built with libtool?
> >how would libtool find the dependent libraries if
On 2004-11-15T19:27-0600, Bob Friesenhahn wrote:
) >> Yes. When you're making a distribution, Libtool's behaviour of directly
) >> linking indirect-dependencies is insane. For a SONAME change to a
) >> library deep in the stack, that only affects the library immediately
) >> above it, you suddenl
On Mon, 15 Nov 2004, Jacob Meuser wrote:
but this only works is all the libraries have .la files, right?
what happens if not all those libraries were built with libtool?
how would libtool find the dependent libraries if there is no .la?
That is a function of pkg-config. :-)
From the outside, nothin
On Tue, Nov 16, 2004 at 01:20:58AM +, Gary V. Vaughan wrote:
> Bob Friesenhahn wrote:
> >On Mon, 15 Nov 2004, Gary V. Vaughan wrote:
> >
> >>>Bob Friesenhahn wrote:
> >>>
>
> Doesn't this patch cause Linux to be more equal than other operating
> systems, thereby causing free applic
On Tue, 16 Nov 2004, Gary V. Vaughan wrote:
under Linux, but the authors expect them to be portable because they use
autotools and standard APIs. It seems that the shortened link line will
allow developers to not list the dependencies which are necessary on some
other platforms.
That's not what
On Mon, 15 Nov 2004, Joe Orton wrote:
Yes. When you're making a distribution, Libtool's behaviour of directly
linking indirect-dependencies is insane. For a SONAME change to a
library deep in the stack, that only affects the library immediately
above it, you suddenly need to rebuild your entire
Bob Friesenhahn wrote:
On Mon, 15 Nov 2004, Gary V. Vaughan wrote:
Bob Friesenhahn wrote:
Doesn't this patch cause Linux to be more equal than other operating
systems, thereby causing free applications to be developed which won't
work anywhere else?
No, it just shortens the link line on platforms
On 2004-11-15T17:19-0600, Bob Friesenhahn wrote:
) system incrementally. There is also the point that the libtool which
) comes with a Linux distribution has likely already been hacked to be
) more lenient. If FSF libtool becomes more lenient by default, then
) there likely little actual impact.
On Mon, 15 Nov 2004, Gary V. Vaughan wrote:
Bob Friesenhahn wrote:
Doesn't this patch cause Linux to be more equal than other operating
systems, thereby causing free applications to be developed which won't
work anywhere else?
No, it just shortens the link line on platforms that support that.
The p
> At first I thought that would be to absorb pkg-config's
> functionality into libtool (to avoid duplication of code and
> maintenance),
Just in case somebody still ponders this, please take into account
that pkg-config works even for people on Windows who use MSVC (the
command-line tools, not
Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
* Gary V. Vaughan wrote on Mon, Nov 15, 2004 at 04:34:49PM CET:
Also, what do we do about -rpath? We still need to encode the
runtime path to even the dropped deplib directories so that the
same library we linked with is picked up at runtime.
Erm, is this not handled in th
On Mon, 15 Nov 2004, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
I've been away for a few days..
* Gary V. Vaughan wrote on Sun, Nov 14, 2004 at 09:44:19PM CET:
Scott James Remnant wrote:
They're both trying to deal with platforms like Solaris that don't have
a needed-following link loader.
That's a good idea, if we kn
On Mon, Nov 15, 2004 at 03:45:10PM +, Scott James Remnant wrote:
> On Mon, 2004-11-15 at 15:34 +, Gary V. Vaughan wrote:
>
> > Scott James Remnant wrote:
> >
> > > I submitted keybuk-linux-deplibs.patch to libtool-patches back in March,
> > > and there was a slight objection from Bob and
$B$O$8$a$^$7$F!#2CF`$C$F$^$9!y(B
$B0JA0%;%C%/%9%U%l%s%I$rJg=8$5$l$F$$$^$7$?$h$M!)[EMAIL
(BPROTECTED]>fIW$G$9$+!)!)(B
(B[EMAIL PROTECTED]"$<$R$J$C$F$_$?$$$H;W$C$F$$$k$N$G$9!#(B
$B6a$$=h$K=;$s$G$k?M$G$9$7!"$H$F$b5$$K$J$C$?$N$G"v(B
$B4JC1$K<+8J>R2p$r$7$^$9$M$C!*(B
$B:P$O(B22$B:[EMAI
* Gary V. Vaughan wrote on Mon, Nov 15, 2004 at 04:34:49PM CET:
> >Bob Friesenhahn wrote:
> >>
> >>This solution does not seem to support the case where an actual
> >>dependency exists but is not registered in the library (because the
> >>user didn't supply it) so that the dynamic link loader doesn
* Sean Dague wrote on Thu, Nov 11, 2004 at 09:45:40PM CET:
> The issue I reported a couple weeks ago is still there. We have now tracked
> down based on a number of versions of libtool to figure out what works and
> what doesn't.
>
> libtool 1.4.x - all versions work that we've tried
> libtool 1.
On Mon, 2004-11-15 at 15:51 +, Joe Orton wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 15, 2004 at 02:42:51PM +, Scott James Remnant wrote:
> > On Mon, 2004-11-15 at 13:16 +, Gary V. Vaughan wrote:
> >
> > > Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
> > > Scott James Remnant wrote:
> > > >
> > > >They're both trying
On Mon, 2004-11-15 at 15:34 +, Gary V. Vaughan wrote:
> Scott James Remnant wrote:
>
> > I submitted keybuk-linux-deplibs.patch to libtool-patches back in March,
> > and there was a slight objection from Bob and nobody else joined in to
> > ok it.
>
> The list was very busy around then, and
On Mon, Nov 15, 2004 at 02:42:51PM +, Scott James Remnant wrote:
> On Mon, 2004-11-15 at 13:16 +, Gary V. Vaughan wrote:
>
> > Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
> > Scott James Remnant wrote:
> > >
> > >They're both trying to deal with platforms like Solaris that don't have
> > >a nee
Scott James Remnant wrote:
I submitted keybuk-linux-deplibs.patch to libtool-patches back in March,
and there was a slight objection from Bob and nobody else joined in to
ok it.
The list was very busy around then, and I was waiting to see the results
of you and Bob duking it out ;-) You didn't ans
* Peter O'Gorman wrote on Tue, Nov 09, 2004 at 02:46:09PM CET:
> I just want to get some possibilities out there into the ether. Feel free
> to add more bits/say which bits are silly.
>
> Post 2.0:
glibc HEAD NEWS has:
|
| Namespaces in ld.so are implemented. DSOs can be loaded in separate
| na
On Mon, 2004-11-15 at 13:16 +, Gary V. Vaughan wrote:
> Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
> Scott James Remnant wrote:
> >
> >They're both trying to deal with platforms like Solaris that don't have
> >a needed-following link loader.
>
> > The patch that is in Debian's libtool?
>
> It is
On Sun, 2004-11-14 at 14:45 -0600, Bob Friesenhahn wrote:
> On Sun, 14 Nov 2004, Albert Chin wrote:
>
> > On Sun, Nov 14, 2004 at 08:57:27AM +, Scott James Remnant wrote:
> >> They're both trying to deal with platforms like Solaris that don't have
> >> a needed-following link loader.
> >
> >
On Sun, 2004-11-14 at 17:37 -0800, Jacob Meuser wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 14, 2004 at 08:53:15AM +, Scott James Remnant wrote:
> > I actually tend to think we should look at this the other way ... if we
> > could expose the information Libtool has to other tools, pkg-config
> > could defer to Libto
On Sun, 2004-11-14 at 13:35 -0500, Daniel Reed wrote:
> On 2004-11-14T08:50-, Scott James Remnant wrote:
> ) On Fri, 2004-11-12 at 11:20 +, Gary V. Vaughan wrote:
> ) > Haven't thought through the -I thing yet though... maybe that doesn't
> ) > belong in libtool... maybe we could provide a
Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
Scott James Remnant wrote:
They're both trying to deal with platforms like Solaris that don't have
a needed-following link loader.
So will libtool do The Right Thing in all circumstances, given
the tiny patch to enable link_all_deps=yes on linux and whatever
other system has
* Gary V. Vaughan wrote on Mon, Nov 15, 2004 at 01:11:26PM CET:
> Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
> >* Gary V. Vaughan wrote on Sun, Nov 14, 2004 at 09:44:19PM CET:
> >>Scott James Remnant wrote:
> >>
> >>>They're both trying to deal with platforms like Solaris that don't have
> >>>a needed-following link l
Hi Howard!
Howard Chu wrote:
That's great for shared libraries, but one of the things I actually like
about libtool is the automatic dependency inclusion when linking static
libraries. I.e., plain 'ol .a archives are much less friendlier without
libtool because they don't carry any dependency in
Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
I've been away for a few days..
* Gary V. Vaughan wrote on Sun, Nov 14, 2004 at 09:44:19PM CET:
Scott James Remnant wrote:
They're both trying to deal with platforms like Solaris that don't have
a needed-following link loader.
That's a good idea, if we know the linker can fi
Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
I've been away for a few days..
* Gary V. Vaughan wrote on Sun, Nov 14, 2004 at 09:44:19PM CET:
Scott James Remnant wrote:
They're both trying to deal with platforms like Solaris that don't have
a needed-following link loader.
That's a good idea, if we know the linker can fi
Hi Jacob,
Jacob Meuser wrote:
On Sun, Nov 14, 2004 at 09:04:31PM +, Gary V. Vaughan wrote:
Hi Bob!
Bob Friesenhahn wrote:
You seem to be a victim of a package install where every package has
used its own unique installation prefix. It seems to me that most
systems use just one or two install
I've been away for a few days..
* Gary V. Vaughan wrote on Sun, Nov 14, 2004 at 09:44:19PM CET:
> Scott James Remnant wrote:
>
> >They're both trying to deal with platforms like Solaris that don't have
> >a needed-following link loader.
>
> That's a good idea, if we know the linker can find depl
37 matches
Mail list logo
