At 8:39 Uhr -0600 23.04.2002, Eric Norum wrote:
>On Tuesday, April 23, 2002, at 06:21 AM, Chris Zubrzycki wrote:
>>should we maybe start to use this in our package's LDFLAGS? It 
>>might make finding real errors easier, especially with packages 
>>like xfree, where I get a *lot* of these warnings. I had wondered 
>>if there was an option like this, and now I found it    :-)
>Would it be better to use the two-level namespace support of ld 
>instead of fighting against it?   I'm not trying to be 
>confrontational, I just would like to know the best way of handling 
>linker issues.  It seems to me that the use of -flat_namespace just 
>raises the need for a bunch of other flags like -undefined suppress 
>and -multiply_defined suppress.  I'm concerned about all the 
>`suppress' options hiding problems that really ought to be fixed 

Well, if a package you work on actually works with two level 
namespaces, you are free to use it. But many many mayn things do not 
work with two level namespaces and probably never will (unless 
somebody invests a lot of time into the specific application). For 
example if you have applications that have "plugins" as loadable 
modules. The modules need to access symbols from the application. If 
you compile it all with two level namespaces, this ain't work, at 
least AFAIK. If there is some neat, simple way to get this working, 
I'd be happy to know about it, though! Never to late to learn a new 
trick :-)

Max Horn
Software Developer

email: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
phone: (+49) 6151-494890

Fink-devel mailing list

Reply via email to