Tom Lane wrote:
> Ugh. So given that linker behavior, it's basically impossible to
> support multiple libpq versions in the same directory anyway on AIX.
It is possible, if you have both versions of the shared object in
the same library. Essentially what I proposed for 3b).
It is the way IBM does
"Albe Laurenz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> Hm. The objection I see to this is that it will not support
>> concurrent installation of multiple libpq versions. What about
>>
>> 4) Build and install only libXX.so.n, don't install libXX.a at all
> Won't work - the linker looks
Tom Lane wrote:
>> 3) Major hacking in Makefile.shlib to achieve the following:
>>- libXX.so.n is built from libXX.a in the traditional way.
>> Then libXX.a is deleted, and recreated as archive
>> containing libXX.so.n.
>>- Linking takes place withOUT -brtl, but with -blibpath:...
"Albe Laurenz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I personally would prefer 3)a)
> 3) Major hacking in Makefile.shlib to achieve the following:
>- libXX.so.n is built from libXX.a in the traditional way.
> Then libXX.a is deleted, and recreated as archive
> containing libXX.so.n.
>- L
Tom Lane wrote:
>>> I think there's a reasonable argument that by installing
>>> a .a file that isn't a shared library, we are violating
>>> the platform's conventions.
>
> Hm. This seems possible with some moderate hacking on Makefile.shlib
> (certainly it'd be no more invasive than the existing
[EMAIL PROTECTED] ("Rocco Altier") writes:
>> Tom Lane wrote:
>> > Is it
>> > possible that the rules have changed across AIX versions,
>> > and that the code in there now is needful for older versions?
>>
>> I don't think that this behaviour has changed. I remember it from
>> AIX 4.3.2.
>>
> AI
