Re: RFC: SDL and X static extension libraries re-revisited
Branden Robinson <branden@debian.org> wrote:
> Remember, a change in the way libSDL and the extension libs talk to each
> other generally will not require a change in libSDL's own interface with
> programs that use it. As Adam pointed out, SDL's purpose in life is to
> abstract that stuff away.
Yes, but because of this static linking stuff, it doesn't *work*.
Let's forget about the dlopen stuff and go back to the normal case.
You've got libsdl-x which is meant to be linked against xv-y.
Application foo is linked against libsdl-x under your scheme, thus it
acquires a copy of xv-y. Now xv's interface changes and hypothetically
becomes xv-z. If you leave libsdl's soname alone, you will now have a
libsdl-x that requires xv-z.
Going back to foo, it now loads the new libsdl-x with xv-y, and boom...
So the soname must be changed in sdl. Unfortunately because nobody is
managing the soname for xv, it is going to be very difficult for the sdl
maintainer to notice such a change, until something breaks of course.
IMHO this is just asking for trouble.
--
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: