On Tue, Aug 27, 2002 at 01:59:09PM +0200, Marcelo E. Magallon wrote: > >> Ryan Murray <rmurray@debian.org> writes: > > > I've filed upstream bug #91767 on glib to request a way to use the > > module loading without RTLD_GLOBAL. > > That bug number is bogus. And I can't find a bug like this associated > with neither glib1.2 nor glib2.0. Where are you looking? http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=91767 certainly shows it for me, and it's been reported as a duplicate of #71615 (it didn't show in the list when I was looking for it already being filed for some reason). > > The development package doesn't need to depend on these. The problem > > exists, we know what it is, and we should fix it, rather than hack > > around it by making things uninstallable if there might be a problem. > > Since I'm the one who asked for that dependency, I guess I have to > explain. > > The problem arises when a binary links against both libpng2 and > libgtk2.0 (whatever the actual soname of that is). Since the second Yes. This is the problem we know about. Depending on libraries that aren't needed for linking is not a fix for the problem. Keeping the ABI the same is, as is not using RTLD_GLOBAL. > library maps libpng3 globally, the application can't use PNG files > anymore. The reason I asked for that dependency is to avoid having In most cases, the application shouldn't need to use png files directly, with some obvious exceptions like gimp. It's still a problem, tho... > applications linked against the "wrong" libpng. If someone fixes > libgtk2.0, then yes, remove the dependency, but until then, the > dependency has a reason to be there. As a hack around the problem that causes most people to file bugs asking it to be changed to the one you aren't depending on. I realize why you want it, just don't agree that the hack is as useful as you make it to be. -- Ryan Murray, Debian Developer (rmurray@cyberhqz.com, rmurray@debian.org) The opinions expressed here are my own.
Attachment:
pgpSRLhXrLC23.pgp
Description: PGP signature