This one time, at band camp, Russ Allbery said: > Stephen Gran <sgran@debian.org> writes: > > This one time, at band camp, Russ Allbery said: > > >> * The new warnings from the dpkg-* tools warn about any binary Perl > >> module because all binary Perl modules use symbols from Perl itself but > >> traditionally aren't linked directly against libperl. (There was some > >> reason for this that I don't recall off-hand.) Should these warnings > >> just be ignored? Suppressed in some way? Should binary Perl modules > >> link against libperl? I haven't worked through the implications in my > >> head yet. > > > See #416266 for an example of why it would be nice if they did. Linking > > the binary perl modules to libperl does make this problem go away, but > > I've been waiting to push it over to the perl folks until we have > > something resembling patches. > > Oh, right, that's the problem. /usr/bin/perl doesn't use libperl itself > and instead just exports the same symbols to any modules it loads. So if > the module is linked with libperl, when the module is loaded by the Perl > interpretor, it loads libperl into the same namespace, the Perl > interpretor and libperl both define the same symbols, and the world > explodes. As I understand it, this is only the case on i386 - on other arches, /usr/bin/perl links to libperl, although the modules don't. -- ----------------------------------------------------------------- | ,''`. Stephen Gran | | : :' : sgran@debian.org | | `. `' Debian user, admin, and developer | | `- http://www.debian.org | -----------------------------------------------------------------
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature