At 7:22 Uhr -0400 25.04.2002, David R. Morrison wrote: >Max, your new gdk-pixbuf package seems to have fixed all of the problems. >Thanks! > >However, the current structure of this package does raise an important >question about the shared libraries policy. gdk-pixbuf has a bunch of >shared objects (foo.so), which are different from shared libraries. >If I understand correctly, we can't include these in the versioning >system: otool -L doesn't report versions for them, and so on. So >probably they should be treated like binaries rather than like libraries?
Yeah, right. They are "plugins". They can't "coexist" with older versions of theirs. OTOH, a newer gdk-pixbuf may *not* be able to load the older plugins. Hm. >In the present package, numbers have been given to these shared objects, >and symlinks have been set up from unnumbered to numbered versions. >Presumably this was done by libtool. But since the objects are never invoked >with -l in a compile setting, the symlinks don't serve their usual >purpose. And since the MACH data as probed by otool doesn't include >numbers, we won't be able to store several different numbered versions >on the system and let the dpkg/shlibs tools take care of updating. Well, gdk-pixbuf tries to assign them a version (1.0.0), but it seems that either GNU libtool doesn't support this, or flat out dyld doesn'T support this (for loadable modules I mean). >So I would think that this package should be split into three pieces, >maybe the third one to be called gdk-pixbuf-loaders. It would be treated >like the binaries are treated in some other pakcages. Splitting it off gives >the possibility of allowing the dkpg/shlibs system to install multiple >versioned copies of the dylibs, without getting conflicts between .so >files. I am not sure that would actually work, see above: the loadable modules might not work with different versions of the .dylibs. >The other option would be to move the symlinks for .so files from >gdk-pixbuf-shlibs back to the main gdk-pixbuf package. But as I tried to >explain above, I'm not sure that this makes sense. Neither am I. Maybe we can rename the "loaders" directors to loaders-VERSION ? Cheers, Max -- ----------------------------------------------- Max Horn Software Developer email: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> phone: (+49) 6151-494890 _______________________________________________ Fink-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/fink-devel
