Reuben Thomas wrote: > 2010/3/5 Paolo Bonzini <[email protected]>: >> On 03/05/2010 11:28 AM, Reuben Thomas wrote: >>> >>> 2010/3/5 Paolo Bonzini<[email protected]>: >>>> >>>> 03-dlopen-pcre.patch >>>> Ialso not appropriate for upstream (not in its current shape >>>> anyway since it should at least use ltdl and not hardcode the >>>> soname). >>> >>> This is originally from me; it's also in the patch tracker on >>> Savannah, #7017. Your answer above implicitly addresses my question, >>> which is which dynamic loading mechanism I should use. If you'd repeat >>> that comment on the patch tracker (if using ltdl is indeed the >>> answer), then I could move forward... >> >> Usually when building from source either you have a dependency or not; >> run-time dependencies in something as fundamental as grep seem strange. > > The reason for it in Debian is that grep is in /bin whereas libpcre is > in /usr/lib. In Fedora, I believe that libpcre is in /lib. I believe > that grep's location, at least, is standardised, so there is some > system-neutral sense to this.
On some systems, libpcre is under /usr, and on Debian it used to be (long ago), to the chagrin of all of us who ended up having unbootable systems after a grep upgrade that made grep link to it. It must be a run-time linkage, since grep must be able to run when only /bin is mounted, and /usr/lib is not yet available. It's ok if pcre-related code fails to run in early boot-related scripts, but grep must not link to any library in /usr/... > I do not have a strong opinion on this (personally, of course, it's > easier if I don't have to update the patch to be system-neutral!). If > you don't think it's appropriate for upstream, then you should remove > it from the TODO list at > > http://www.gnu.org/software/grep/devel.html > > By the way, I see the list here is rather more complete than the TODO > file in grep, which itself looks as though it might be capable of some > updating. If I were to merge the two and post it as a patch to grep's > TODO, would the maintainers care to prune it? Maybe the web page could > then be made simply to point to the version in Savannah. Sounds good to me.
