[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: RFC: proposal for indirect deplibs
From: |
Ralf Wildenhues |
Subject: |
Re: RFC: proposal for indirect deplibs |
Date: |
Sat, 27 Nov 2004 20:03:43 +0100 |
User-agent: |
Mutt/1.5.6+20040722i |
* Gary V. Vaughan wrote on Sat, Nov 27, 2004 at 07:47:35PM CET:
> Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
> >* Albert Chin wrote on Fri, Nov 26, 2004 at 10:09:31PM CET:
> >
> >My proposal: On systems with "smart linker": for every interface
> >change, only update the set of libraries and programs exposed to
> >this change. (That is, if we can come up with a sane set of
> >semantics.)
>
> I'm right behind you for this one, and think that it would be a huge
> value add for libtool-2.2 -- as long as we heed the caveats pointed
> out by Bob.
OK.
> >What's more, there is precedence here: Debian's libtool makes use of
> >link_all_deplibs=no. I would like something much more conservative
> >than this overall trust in library authors, but something better
> >than having libtool guess what ultimatively cannot be guessed.
>
> s/precedence/precedent/ (prod me if you hate having your grammar
> corrected, like wot I do, and I'll stop it)
On the contrary. See below.
> >Actually, I also believe that it's a good thing to support the
> >enhanced features that a GNU system (which GNU libtool is part of)
> >can offer, if (and only if) we can support them in a portable,
> >backward-compatible and smoothly-declining (does this word make
> >sense?) fashion. E.g., I'd like versioned symbols as well, but
> >they seem to be impossible to realize while fulfilling the last
> >mentioned property.
>
> "degrading gracefully" is the term I have always used.
Thanks a lot. I sat here for minutes trying to think of this
expression. Literally. And after I couldn't get any helpful clues
from dict.leo.org, I reckoned I'd just send it anyway, people will
understand. But yes, I do very much appreciate being corrected for
language/spelling and stuff. How else should I get rid of my
mistakes?
> Open Source
> is almost always an evolutionary process, so we can only take it one
> step at a time... best of all, if we step out of line, it is usually
> easy to get back on track and try again with something else :-)
ACK. And it's all been words so far only, I won't think of
implementation until afterwards (can you tell I'm not a physicist?).
You know what: I think I did it. I got static linux-dietlibc working
here, except for some minor details. Took long, found ugly bugs, hate
the fact that I was not stubborn enough to apply the libltdl `clean
parsing' patch back then. Will have to wait until tomorrow, though,
booze is waiting.
Cheers,
Ralf
Re: RFC: proposal for indirect deplibs, Scott James Remnant, 2004/11/26
Re: RFC: proposal for indirect deplibs, Albert Chin, 2004/11/26