On Tue, Mar 29, 2005 at 01:03:59AM +0200, Adam Gołębiowski wrote: > On Tue, Mar 29, 2005 at 12:51:37AM +0200, Jakub Bogusz wrote: > > On Tue, Mar 29, 2005 at 12:37:10AM +0200, Adam Gołębiowski wrote: > > > On Tue, Mar 29, 2005 at 12:38:21AM +0200, Jakub Bogusz wrote: > > > > On Tue, Mar 29, 2005 at 12:27:35AM +0200, Adam Gołębiowski wrote: > > > > > On Mon, Mar 28, 2005 at 11:57:55PM +0200, qboosh wrote: > > > > > > Author: qboosh Date: Mon Mar 28 21:57:55 2005 > > > > > > GMT > > > > > > Module: SPECS Tag: HEAD > > > > > > ---- Log message: > > > > > > - aaah, use shared glib - on amd64 static won't go > > > > > > > > > > Will go if glib2 is rebuilt with -fPIC (just checked). > > > > > > > > It doesn't make any sense. > > > > > > Why (just curious)? > > > > > > Is that because this error (rebuild with -fPIC) show up when building > > > glib2? > > > > glib2 is very common library in PLD, there is no need to reduce such > > dependency by increasing package size and possibility of symbol name > > clashes if some program uses both libextractor and glib2 (either > > directly or indirectly). > > Shouldn't such symbol name clashes appear at build time (of > libextractor)? Just as it happened when glib2 was build without -fPIC.
Linker cannot know what programs will ask library to load dynamic module. > > Static library isn't meant to be used in loadable modules. > > Sure it isn't. > > > Moreover, if the library is common (like glib2), there is possibility of > > symbol clashes (see above). > > So we should have glib2 built without -fPIC? Let static be static. We don't need PIC for static linking where there is shared library. -- Jakub Bogusz http://cyber.cs.net.pl/~qboosh/ _______________________________________________ pld-devel-en mailing list [email protected] http://lists.pld-linux.org/mailman/listinfo/pld-devel-en
