On Tue, Sep 23, 2003 at 03:31:20PM +0200, Mario Lang wrote: > Bastian Blank <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > On Sun, Sep 07, 2003 at 09:04:39PM +0200, Petter Reinholdtsen wrote: > >> Could weak symbols solve the problem? I'm not very familiar with > >> shared library internals, but I believe a weak symbol will be selected > >> from the library if no other matching symbol is available. If the > >> library provides such symbol, it would make mklibs happy, while the > >> shared library linker would still select the symbol from the > >> executable. Is this correct? I am mostly guessing based on the > >> rumors I've heard about weak symbols. > > Hmm, can you give me a hint on how one is supposed to > define a weak symbol? This is all rather new to me. > > > dropping subdirs which aren't referenced via rpath from the resolver in > > mklibs. none of that libs will be reduced. > > I am sorry, I do not grasp this sentence in the given context. > The problem is not reduction, at least not AFAICS. mklibs is not > supposed to reduce /lib/brltty/lib*.so. It only checks that > all referenced symbols are actually defined somewhere (in a library), > which fails since the missing symbol is actually defined in > the executable that loads the lib. >
Would you please update bug 211092 with this information? Geert Stappers -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
