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

Re: RFC: SDL and X static extension libraries re-revisited

Branden Robinson <branden@debian.org> wrote:

> 5) You can't just pick up and build shared versions of these libraries
> unless someone is willing to keep track of their sonames and increment
> the versioning when an incompatible change is made to the library.
> Otherwise, you stand an excellent change of rendering your users'
> programs useless with unresolved symbol errors when they try to run
> them.

> 6) However, you're still stuck on the architectures mentioned in 3) in
> one case.  While it's perfectly possible to ensure that various tools
> provide different link flags depending on whether they're being used to
> construct executables or libraries (We have already implemented
> "sdl-config --library-libs" in addition to the existing "sdl-config
> --libs" option), there is still the problem of plugins that are
> dlopen()ed.

Wait a second, just because you're doing a dlopen, it doesn't mean that
you've avoided the soname problem.  You've just succeeded in shifting
it from your libraries to sdl.

Now every time your libraries' interface changes, sdl's soname will need
to be bumped.  Worse yet, unless sdl's maintainer actively tracks this,
it will not be done and we will end up with broken binaries.

IOW, if you want to solve the dlopen problem, make proper shlibs.
Debian GNU/Linux 2.2 is out! ( http://www.debian.org/ )
Email:  Herbert Xu ~{PmV>HI~} <herbert@gondor.apana.org.au>
Home Page: http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/
PGP Key: http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/pubkey.txt

Reply to: