On Fri, 26 Feb 2010, Lisandro Dalcin wrote: > On 26 February 2010 13:48, Satish Balay <balay at mcs.anl.gov> wrote: > > One note on this scheme wrt linux.. > > > > Fedora is making it illegal for appliation to link *only* to > > libpetsc.so [if libpetsc.so relies on lipetscsys.so etc..] > > > > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/UnderstandingDSOLinkChange > > > > perhaps other linux distos will do the same.. > > > > OK, these folks have lost their mind. This policy is something they > should not enforce, but check for it, let say in a tool like > rpmlint... Moreover, these checks should only make sense where the > dependencies are for DSO's comming from unrelated packages... > > The issues that the proposed change is trying to address is VERY > valid, but it has nothing to do with the use case I'm proposing for > PETSc.
An't you proposing things should work for user with 'gcc usercode.c -lpetsc'? The way I understant the above - eventhough we create: 'gcc -shared libpetsc.so -lpetscksp -lpetscmat -lpetscsys -lmpich -lblas' one would have to use: gcc usercode.c -lpetsc -lpetscksp -lpetscmat -lpetscsys -lmpich -lblas'? And if the user does only 'gcc usercode.c -lpetsc' - he would get unresolved symbol errors. Satish
