Date: Wed, 23 Sep 1998 00:26:41 -0700 (PDT) From: asami@FreeBSD.ORG (Satoshi Asami) To: imp@village.org Cc: ports@FreeBSD.ORG, jdp@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: SOCKS port inspires question... Message-ID: <199809230726.AAA11574@silvia.hip.berkeley.edu> In-Reply-To: <199809230657.AAA18463@harmony.village.org> (message from Warner Losh on Wed, 23 Sep 1998 00:57:16 -0600)
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
* These guidelines say nothing about how to detect elf vs aout at
* compile time, which was what I was asking about.
*
* I could do something gross like:
*
* .if ${PORTOBJECTFORMAT} == "elf"
* CFLAGS += -DELF_FORMAT
* .else
* CFLAGS += -DAOUT_FORMAT
* .endif
*
* and test for ELF_FORMAT or AOUT_FORMAT in the code. I was hoping for
* something better, but will use that as a fallback.
That is exactly what people mean by "compile time" (as opposed to,
say, "run time"). If you meant "from inside the compiler", then I
don't know of any.
* OK. Right now the socks library is installed as libsocks5_sh.so, with
* no version number. That's why things are different. It has been this
* way for a very long time. It isn't so much a library as it is a
* shared object to be loaded before libc via the LD_PRELOAD mechanism.
* I think that's why it doesn't have a version number on it, because a
* version number would be irrelevant in all cases.
I see.
* Also, objformat is insufficient because that tells the default format
* of the system, and not the format of the executable you wish to run
* with runsocks.
*
* runsocks ftp prep.ai.mit.edu
*
* should, imho, use the aout libsocks5_sh.so when `which ftp` is in
* a.out format, reguardless of the output of objformat. This is
* important for legacy applications which are dynamically linked, but
* which don't have socks support compiled in. Until they are updated to
* elf by the vendor, they must co-exist with the current scheme.
*
* It sounds like I need to change the aout version of this port to
* generate libsocks5_sh.so.1.0 and the elf version to generate
* libsocks5_sh.so.1, rather than what is traditionally done (which is a
* simple libsocks5_sh.so). This would be enough to differentiate
* between the two on a mixed system, and some smarts would need to be
* added to runsocks.
Well, you are answering your own question here aren't you? :)
Satoshi
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-ports" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199809230726.AAA11574>