Date: Fri, 11 May 2007 16:12:00 +0200 From: Alexander Leidinger <Alexander@Leidinger.net> To: Dag-Erling =?utf-8?b?U23Dg8K4cmdyYXY=?= <des@des.no> Cc: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org, Mike, Meyer <mwm-keyword-freebsdhackers2.e313df@mired.org>, Ivan Voras <ivoras@fer.hr>, Kris Kennaway <kris@obsecurity.org> Subject: Re: New FreeBSD package system (a.k.a. Daemon Package System (dps)) Message-ID: <20070511161200.w7tzoc5mkg8og44c@webmail.leidinger.net> In-Reply-To: <86sla33gkm.fsf@dwp.des.no> References: <200705102105.27271.blackdragon@highveldmail.co.za> <f20c8u$htp$1@sea.gmane.org> <17987.52037.112351.872442@bhuda.mired.org> <20070511015156.GA77895@xor.obsecurity.org> <86zm4b3h7h.fsf@dwp.des.no> <20070511082657.GA24652@xor.obsecurity.org> <86sla33gkm.fsf@dwp.des.no>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Quoting Dag-Erling Sm=C3=83=C2=B8rgrav <des@des.no> (from Fri, 11 May 2007 = =20 10:33:29 +0200): > The existence of .la files is a bug. I fully agree. > We already have a mechanism for recording dependencies between > libraries; it's built into the ELF format, and does not require > hardcoding any directories. Introducing .la files which override the > existing mechanism and *do* hardcode directories is a regression. > > I don't buy the argument that "KDE won't build without them", or > whatever it was you used to justify this. There is nothing an .la file > does which can't be done more properly by adding the correct directory > to your ldconfig path. Unfortunately you are addressing this to the wrong people. You need to =20 talk with the libtool people. Trying to use a libtool version which is =20 as closest as possible to the version distributed by the authors is a =20 very sane requirement for our ports collection and the users which =20 expect a sane behavior of libtool when they want to create a tarball =20 which is supposed to be cross-platform (for an appropriate value of =20 cross-platform). So you need to address the issues upstream. As soon as a new release =20 comes out with the improvements you suggest, we will get them in =20 FreeBSD. The problem is that a lot of users of libltdl try to open the =20 .la file instead of the lib (AFAIR libltdl tries to first open the .la =20 then the .so if you don't have a .la or .so ending in the dlopen() =20 string, but most people specify the .la... I could misremember this, =20 it's been a while since I looked at it). The way to go is to teach libtool about the ELF features and to not =20 produce the .la files on ELF systems. Additionally a warning in =20 libltdl needs to printed in case the .la file is used (as a second =20 step maybe adding a long delay to the loading in case a .la file is =20 used, to provoke the transition). While it may be more easy to talk about doing something like this in =20 our ports collection, the way to go is to address this upstream with =20 the libtool authors, and not with portmgr/ade or on hackers/ports. Bye, Alexander. --=20 Law of the Yukon: =09Only the lead dog gets a change of scenery. http://www.Leidinger.net Alexander @ Leidinger.net: PGP ID =3D B0063FE7 http://www.FreeBSD.org netchild @ FreeBSD.org : PGP ID =3D 72077137
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20070511161200.w7tzoc5mkg8og44c>