Re: readline and bfd libraries?
> Andrew Howell writes ("Re: readline and bfd libraries?"):
> > librl is the old readline package
> > libreadline is the new ELF readline package
> > aout-librl is the new a.out readline package
> >
> > libreadline has an archive library
>
> What if I want just the shared library ? Is the package small enough
> for this not to be a requirement ?
This leads to something I've been meaning to bring up.
I'm beginning to think that all packages which provide shared
libraries used by other packages need to be split into two or more
packages. The first package contains only the shared libraries and
minimal support files. The remaining packages should contain
everything else (e.g. header files, static libraries, etc.). Also,
the packages containing the shared libraries need to be designed such
that multiple, major versions of them can coexist.
As an example, here is how I'm currently planning to package Tcl in
the new ELF version.
tcl74 will contain tclsh7.4, libtcl7.4.so.1 and supporting run-time
files and documentation. It will coexist with other shared library
packages such as tcl75.
tcl-dev will contain header files, static libraries and supporting
documentation. Only one of these packages will be allowed at a time.
BTW, since I used Tcl for my example, I might as well ask this now.
The command-level manual pages will go in the tcl74 package and the
C-level manual pages will go in the tcl-dev package, but where should
the script-level manual pages go? IMO, they should go with the
interpreter in the tcl74 package, but making them coexist with tcl75,
etc. would be impratical.
David
--
David Engel Optical Data Systems, Inc.
david@ods.com 1101 E. Arapaho Road
(214) 234-6400 Richardson, TX 75081
Reply to: