Bob Friesenhahn <bfrie...@simple.dallas.tx.us> writes: > On Tue, 25 Aug 2009, Russ Allbery wrote:
>>> Relying on the OS's implicit dependency features seems to be an >>> approach which is fraught with peril. >> Relying on the dynamic linker to resolve implicit dependencies is the >> only way that it's really feasible to maintain a distribution the size >> of Debian. Otherwise, your shared library dependencies get so >> entangled that it's extremely difficult to correctly handle >> transitions. > Note that program/library linkage and the dynamic linker are two > entirely different things. Libtool only takes care of the former, > although it may run ldconfig to assist with the latter. I know what the difference is. My point is that adding an explicit dependency on a shared library whose ABI you do not use directly simply doesn't scale when maintaining a distribution the size of Debian. You have to rely on the dynamic linker to resolve transitive dependencies. I mention the dynamic linker because one of the reasons why libtool has this feature is for platforms where the dynamic linker *cannot* resolve transitive dependencies and needs the binary to be linked against all shared libraries, including ones only used indirectly. -- Russ Allbery (r...@stanford.edu) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/> _______________________________________________ http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/libtool
