Re: Are libtool .la files in non-dev library packages bugs?
* Marcelo E. Magallon [Tue, Aug 20 2002, 04:19:02PM]:
> > Yes, and this breaks the whole idea of SONAMES. I wonder how such shit
> > has ever been allowed to enter Debian.
> Are we still talking about plug-ins here? I had that impression.
> Say, how is a SONAME useful for a plugin? A plug-in is not something
Do we? Plugins do not need soname, but then they should be keeped
outside of ld.so search paths.
> you link directly into a program (that's the whole point of it), so it
> has no bussiness living in any directory that the dynamic linker
Exactly. A program should know how the plugin name called and it should
manage the binary compatibility in their own ways. Why does a plugin
solution need an additional magic file to resolve the plugin, stored in
between other, SONAMEd libs?
> searches. For the purposes of a plug-in, a namespace is as good a
> soname. If you desing your plug-in system in any sensible way, the
> user tells you "open foo" and your program will go looking for
> /usr/lib/bar/plugin-foo.so or whatever naming scheme makes you happy.
> The point is, you'll have your very own area where you can set up your
> very own mess.
Exactly. Get rid of .la files, their usage to resolve path names is a
-!- Gromitt_ is now known as Gromitt
<@Getty> oh scheisse, gromitt wird wach
<@Getty> da hab ich jetzt soviele lines gemacht in den letzten 24 std.
<@Getty> und jetzt kommt der wieder ;)