On Sun, Nov 09, 2008 at 12:01:33AM +0200, Roumen Petrov wrote:
Russ Allbery wrote:
Roumen Petrov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Russ Allbery wrote:
libreadline is linked against libncurses on Debian.
Which version ?
readline 5.2-3, ncurses 5.7-2.
No,no debian version/release.
That's the
On Sat, Nov 8, 2008 at 3:38 PM, Bob Friesenhahn
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I feel like today I just watched the movie Groundhog Day another 20 times.
This topic re-emerges just as often as the one about whether list replies
should default to the original sender, or to the list.
It seems that
On Sun, Nov 09, 2008 at 07:31:47AM -0800, Dan Nicholson wrote:
On Sat, Nov 8, 2008 at 3:38 PM, Bob Friesenhahn
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I feel like today I just watched the movie Groundhog Day another 20 times.
This topic re-emerges just as often as the one about whether list replies
On Sat, 8 Nov 2008, Charles Wilson wrote:
If you try to exploit this in your build system, to allow floating
readline...that will not be a portable construct. libtool is about
portability, not necessarily about squeezing every possible flexibility
out of ELF lazy binding.
It seems that if
Russ Allbery wrote:
Roumen Petrov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Russ Allbery wrote:
Debian's experience to date is that --as-needed is buggy and breaks a
lot of software, and overall is not a particularly stable solution.
Removing *.la files so that the unneeded shared libraries aren't linked
in
On Sat, Nov 8, 2008 at 7:00 AM, Roumen Petrov
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Russ Allbery wrote:
Roumen Petrov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Russ Allbery wrote:
Debian's experience to date is that --as-needed is buggy and breaks a
lot of software, and overall is not a particularly stable solution.
[SNIP]
But problem is not in the libtool.
Yes it is. If you're linking to libfoo, libtool reads libfoo.la and
adds direct links to everything in dependency_libs. Let's say libfoo
depends on libbar and libbaz. You're application ends up directly
linking to libfoo, libbar and libbaz instead of
On Sat, Nov 8, 2008 at 9:22 AM, Roumen Petrov
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[SNIP]
But problem is not in the libtool.
Yes it is. If you're linking to libfoo, libtool reads libfoo.la and
adds direct links to everything in dependency_libs. Let's say libfoo
depends on libbar and libbaz. You're
Roumen Petrov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Russ Allbery wrote:
When you create a libtool library, libtool records every library
against which that library was linked into the *.la file. If you then
link another shared library against that shared library using libtool,
libtool reads that list
Russ Allbery wrote:
Roumen Petrov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Russ Allbery wrote:
When you create a libtool library, libtool records every library
against which that library was linked into the *.la file. If you then
link another shared library against that shared library using libtool,
Dan Nicholson wrote:
On Sat, Nov 8, 2008 at 9:22 AM, Roumen Petrov
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[SNIP]
But problem is not in the libtool.
Yes it is. If you're linking to libfoo, libtool reads libfoo.la and
adds direct links to everything in dependency_libs. Let's say libfoo
depends on libbar and
Roumen Petrov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
It was old build bug when building readline library on some linux-es. In
my memory is suse 7.1 but I'm sure that only this particular version was
affected.
Many other linux verdors build readline without dependent libraries and
this allow application
Russ Allbery wrote:
Roumen Petrov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
It was old build bug when building readline library on some linux-es. In
my memory is suse 7.1 but I'm sure that only this particular version was
affected.
Many other linux verdors build readline without dependent libraries and
Roumen Petrov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Russ Allbery wrote:
libreadline is linked against libncurses on Debian.
Which version ?
readline 5.2-3, ncurses 5.7-2.
This is an 7(5?) years old linux bug.
I'm very dubious of that assertion. Applications which use readline but
do not directly use
Russ Allbery wrote:
Roumen Petrov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Russ Allbery wrote:
libreadline is linked against libncurses on Debian.
Which version ?
readline 5.2-3, ncurses 5.7-2.
No,no debian version/release.
This is an 7(5?) years old linux bug.
I'm very dubious of that
On Sat, 8 Nov 2008, Russ Allbery wrote:
pkg-config supports having separate dependency lists for static linking
and shared linking, which seems to adequately address this problem (if
that feature is actually used; the documentation last I looked was a bit
lacking and a lot of pkg-config *.pc
Bob Friesenhahn [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Quite a lot can known from .la files but it is apparent that .la files
are now spontaneously deleted.
Hm, I must admit that I generally find them useless compared to reading
readelf -a output, but I'm not the normal user. :)
It is really quite a
Bob Friesenhahn [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
It seems that there is an issue for Linux distribution maintainers. What
needs to be done about it so that this topic does not come up so often?
Well, my preference would be to implement the change to libtool described
in my previous message, but since
Roumen Petrov wrote:
Linking readline against ncurses prevent application to link against
readline against ncursesw and to offer wide characters support.
Note that this is only even possible on a system with lazy binding. For
windows, shared libraries cannot have any undefined symbols at link
On Thu, Nov 6, 2008 at 11:49 PM, Ralf Wildenhues [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hello Russ,
* Russ Allbery wrote on Fri, Nov 07, 2008 at 01:20:28AM CET:
The most frequent problem caused by *.la files is that they add a pile of
unnecessary dependencies to shared libraries, which further entangles
Ralf Wildenhues [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Hello Russ,
* Russ Allbery wrote on Fri, Nov 07, 2008 at 01:20:28AM CET:
The most frequent problem caused by *.la files is that they add a pile
of unnecessary dependencies to shared libraries, which further
entangles package dependencies and makes
Hi Russ,
Russ Allbery wrote:
Ralf Wildenhues [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Hello Russ,
* Russ Allbery wrote on Fri, Nov 07, 2008 at 01:20:28AM CET:
The most frequent problem caused by *.la files is that they add a pile
of unnecessary dependencies to shared libraries, which further
entangles
Roumen Petrov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Russ Allbery wrote:
Debian's experience to date is that --as-needed is buggy and breaks a
lot of software, and overall is not a particularly stable solution.
Removing *.la files so that the unneeded shared libraries aren't linked
in the first place
Dan Nicholson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Looks like I didn't look closely enough. For sure fedora removes all
the .la files unless there is a specific reason to need them. I
thought debian was too, but it looks like they keep them. My fault.
Debian decides this on a maintainer-by-maintainer
Hello Russ,
* Russ Allbery wrote on Fri, Nov 07, 2008 at 01:20:28AM CET:
The most frequent problem caused by *.la files is that they add a pile of
unnecessary dependencies to shared libraries, which further entangles
package dependencies and makes upgrades unnecessarily hard. (This is the
Hi Bob,
* Bob Friesenhahn wrote on Tue, Nov 04, 2008 at 02:56:58AM CET:
On Mon, 3 Nov 2008, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
Rather, the right solution is to make libtool work right in the presence
of installed .la files in those cases where it does not do the right
thing at the moment.
What is the
On Sun, Nov 2, 2008 at 12:59 PM, Ralf Wildenhues [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hello Dan,
* Dan Nicholson wrote on Sat, Nov 01, 2008 at 09:48:28PM CET:
Add an option, --no-la-files, which skips installing the .la files. When
used with --mode=uninstall, libtool tries to use the .lai file from the
On Mon, Nov 3, 2008 at 2:05 PM, Ralf Wildenhues [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hello Dan,
* Dan Nicholson wrote on Mon, Nov 03, 2008 at 03:17:53PM CET:
On Sun, Nov 2, 2008 at 12:59 PM, Ralf Wildenhues [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
* Dan Nicholson wrote on Sat, Nov 01, 2008 at 09:48:28PM CET:
Add an
Dan Nicholson wrote:
On Mon, Nov 3, 2008 at 2:05 PM, Ralf Wildenhues [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[SNIP]
Oh, well. You do know that all the linux distros (that I know of)
remove the .la files, right?
NO
I was sort of hoping there would be a
nice way to do that.
Check content of so called
On Mon, Nov 3, 2008 at 3:06 PM, Roumen Petrov
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Dan Nicholson wrote:
On Mon, Nov 3, 2008 at 2:05 PM, Ralf Wildenhues [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
[SNIP]
Oh, well. You do know that all the linux distros (that I know of)
remove the .la files, right?
NO
Looks like I
* Dan Nicholson wrote on Mon, Nov 03, 2008 at 11:17:57PM CET:
P.S. Why do you keep setting the reply-to on your emails to me? I try
to reply to your messages and end up sending them to myself.
I don't set Reply-To: at all. My mail program (mutt) sets
Mail-Followup-To: to the list address and
Hello Dan,
* Dan Nicholson wrote on Sat, Nov 01, 2008 at 09:48:28PM CET:
Add an option, --no-la-files, which skips installing the .la files. When
used with --mode=uninstall, libtool tries to use the .lai file from the
build directory.
Signed-off-by: Dan Nicholson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---
Add an option, --no-la-files, which skips installing the .la files. When
used with --mode=uninstall, libtool tries to use the .lai file from the
build directory.
Signed-off-by: Dan Nicholson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---
Does this seem reasonable? I've checked that this doesn't break
uninstall or
33 matches
Mail list logo
