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

Re: Early adopters of symbol based dependencies needed

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

Reply to: