Date: Thu, 31 Oct 1996 10:16:30 -0600 From: "Eric L. Hernes" <erich@lodgenet.com> To: Peter Wemm <peter@spinner.DIALix.COM> Cc: "Eric L. Hernes" <erich@lodgenet.com>, asami@freebsd.org (Satoshi Asami), ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: scotty build failure Message-ID: <199610311616.KAA01236@jake.lodgenet.com> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Thu, 31 Oct 1996 22:33:01 %2B0800." <199610311433.WAA09452@spinner.DIALix.COM>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Peter Wemm writes:
>
>Hmm, please look more closely at the impact of the change that I did to
>TCL_SHLIB_SUFFIX='.so.1.0' in tclConfig.sh. To my mind, this is
>unambigious since it's "SHLIB", meaning library, not "shared object". I
yea, but I have mixed feelings about gratitiously picking 1.0 for the
version of whatever uses it.
>was trying to avoid having to do a large, ugly patch to the expect
>configure script which was expecting TCL_SHLIB_SUFFIX to mean "the bit you
>whack on the end of a shared library filename so that ld/rtld can link
>with it".
>
>There are other mechanisms to generate the shared library name, if the
>change that I made to tclConfig.sh is wrong, it needs to come out and
>expect needs to be fixed to use the alternate mechanism that knows about
>shlib versioning. IMHO, the naming and documentation of the intent of the
>variables in tclConfig.sh could be a lot better.
>
scotty needs to be fixed too. It's using TCL_SHLIB_SUFFIX, maybe it needs
TCL_SHARED_LIB_SUFFIX. What's the difference between these two?
TCL_SHARED_LIB_SUFFIX is currently set to ${VERSION}.so.1.0, could
this be set to .so.${VERSION}? Will 3 digit version numbers confuse
the linker? Inquiring minds want to know... ;-) This whole tcl
configuration crap looks pretty ugly^H^H^H^Hambigious :(
>Cheers,
>-Peter
>
>
eric.
--
erich@lodgenet.com
http://rrnet.com/~erich erich@rrnet.com
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199610311616.KAA01236>