Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
> * Anssi Hannula wrote on Wed, Aug 26, 2009 at 12:05:22PM CEST:
>> Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
>>> Do dlopen'ed modules that have indirect
>>> dependencies outside of default-searched library paths get loaded
>>> correctly now, with DT_RPATH entries only pointing to direct deplib
Hi,
A paragraph in libtool's info manual section 7.2 ("Libtool's versioning
system") got me thinking:
The dynamic linker is guaranteed that if a library supports
_every_ interface number between FIRST-INTERFACE and
LAST-INTERFACE, then the program can be relinked against
On Wednesday 26 August 2009 16:30:06 Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
> * Russ Allbery wrote on Wed, Aug 26, 2009 at 07:35:53AM CEST:
> > dlopened modules are something of a special case; it's one of the places
> > where Debian may not remove *.la files depending on the specific
> > situation.
>
> I have a q
Ralf Wildenhues writes:
> * Russ Allbery wrote on Wed, Aug 26, 2009 at 07:35:53AM CEST:
>> dlopened modules are something of a special case; it's one of the
>> places where Debian may not remove *.la files depending on the specific
>> situation.
> I have a question here, since it seems some of t
* Russ Allbery wrote on Wed, Aug 26, 2009 at 07:35:53AM CEST:
>
> dlopened modules are something of a special case; it's one of the places
> where Debian may not remove *.la files depending on the specific
> situation.
I have a question here, since it seems some of the involved people are
reading
* Anssi Hannula wrote on Wed, Aug 26, 2009 at 12:05:22PM CEST:
> Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
> > * Bob Friesenhahn wrote on Wed, Aug 26, 2009 at 05:01:18AM CEST:
> >> Is someone here willing to contribute a portable m4 macro which
> >> tests the compiler (and/or linker) to prove beyond a shadow of a
> >
On Wed, 26 Aug 2009, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
Linux does seem to have good dynamic linker support and its a shame
libtool effectively drags it down to a lower common denominator of other
platforms with worse support.
Actually, historically that was probably done on purpose, to remind
developers
Paul Wise wrote:
> On Tue, 2009-08-25 at 18:34 +0300, Anssi Hannula wrote:
>
>> You mean to subscribe on the debian development list? I'd think this
>> list would be the more appropriate place for discussing a proper
>> upstream solution.
>
> There is no need to subscribe, just ask people to CC y
Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
> * Bob Friesenhahn wrote on Wed, Aug 26, 2009 at 05:01:18AM CEST:
>> Is someone here willing to contribute a portable m4 macro which
>> tests the compiler (and/or linker) to prove beyond a shadow of a
>> doubt that it adequately supports the implicit linkage required? The
>>
