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

Re: [Evms-devel] EVMS: shared libraries with unversioned sonames

On Wednesday 02 January 2002 14:35, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 02, 2002 at 08:32:28AM -0600, Kevin Corry wrote:
> > If you are interested in creating an automake/libtool setup, give it a
> > try and I will look it over and see if we can include it in the future.
> OK, will do.


> > > > Currently the dlist package doesn't have any version number, but I'm
> > > > sure we can come up with one if it makes things easier. I will try to
> > > > do that tomorrow.
> > >
> > > Since libdlist is so small (and not subject to a lot of revision), you
> > > might just want to statically link it and avoid the issue altogether.
> >
> > I suppose that would be possible. But wouldn't that just bloat the size
> > of the engine core and plugin libraries?
> It would sacrifice a little bit of bloat (libdlist.so on my i386 system is
> about 10k) for not having to worry about shared library management for this
> library.  If you want to just keep the versioning in sync with the other
> library, that should work, too, or you can have a completely separate
> versioning scheme (in which case libdlist will need to go in a separate
> binary package).

Hmm...libdlist.so is almost 50k on my system. And I don't think I have any 
debugging turned on.

I'll look into what changes would be necessary to make dlist a static library 
and let you know what I find out.

> > > > [man pages for LvmUtils]
> > >
> > > I can certainly do that; for the most part, it should just be a matter
> > > of copying the corresponding LVM man pages and noting differences in
> > > behaviour, right?
> >
> > Pretty much. Those utilities are meant to model the ones from LVM. All of
> > the options should be the same, except some of the options are ignored in
> > EVMS, either because they aren't implemented yet or aren't pertinent. If
> > you glance through the code in engine/UserInterfaces/LvmUtils, each
> > source file has a function called parse_options() that should give you an
> > idea of which options are ignored in EVMS.
> I will spend some time on this after I have a satisfactory set of initial
> packages.  One other thing, should I change the terminology in the man
> pages to use the EVMS terms, since that is what the commands actually do,
> or leave them with the LVM terms, since they correspond to the commands?

In the documentation that we have, I have tried to move towards using the 
EVMS terminology, so I would suggest the same for the man pages.

> > Ok. So the idea would be just to run "make configure" instead of
> > explicitly calling "autoconf"?
> Yes.  The automake stuff does a pretty good job of this, and it gets pretty
> complex with all of autoconf's dependencies and re-generating individual
> makefiles.  I'll prepare an experimental automake patch so you can decide
> if you want to go that way.



Reply to: