[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: diff/Makefile.am

From: Derek R. Price
Subject: Re: diff/Makefile.am
Date: Thu, 01 Mar 2001 08:27:18 -0500

Pavel Roskin wrote:

> Hello, Derek!
> > 1)  Distribute a stable release
> ...
> >      b)  If installed version >= packaged version, do not install
> It makes sence. I didn't know about that scheme. One important point here
> is that you will be unable to implant hacks into the included library,
> since chances are that it will be installed.

True, but linking against a shared library contatins the same dangers.  In a 
world, stable release of packages like zlib & libdiff would have APIs and a 
lack of
bugs such that they wouldn't require hacking.  Hence my opinion that if we have 
change for those sections of the CVS code we should actually be talking to the
diff-utils &/or zlib developers.

> I don't understand what you mean, but probably we are talking about
> different things. If you are linking against libfoo and it depends on

No, I don't think we were.talking about different things.  I meant that when a
Libtool lib gets installed that it installs a metadata file called libx.la 
(where x
is package-dependant), then shoves the "real" libx.a & libx.so files in a 
directory where they, in theory, won't be noticed.

You mentioned that use of libtool could spread like a virus because if the *.la 
was installed then other packages needed libtool to use it.  I was pointing out 
if the *.a & *.so libs were installed in parallel rather than in the .libs
subdirectory then anybody could use the installed libraries.

I was wondering if I had simply missed a good reason that this hadn't been fixed


Derek Price                      CVS Solutions Architect ( http://CVSHome.org )
mailto:address@hidden     OpenAvenue ( http://OpenAvenue.com )
Pi R squared?!?! Nooo! Pie R round, cornbread R square!

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]