OTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Albe Laurenz
> Sent: Tuesday, September 12, 2006 9:01 AM
> To: Tom Lane *EXTERN*
> Cc: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
> Subject: Re: [PATCHES] [HACKERS] Fix linking of OpenLDAP libraries
>
>
> Tom Lane wrote:
> >
> 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.
>
AIX 4.3 is the first version to support the -brtl. The
Tom Lane wrote:
>> The natural way in AIX would be:
>> - Create libpq.so
>> - Create libpq.a by 'rm -f libpq.a; ar -rc libpq.a libpq.so'
>> - Install only libpq.a
>
> Hm. This seems possible with some moderate hacking on Makefile.shlib
> (certainly it'd be no more invasive than the existing Windo
"Albe Laurenz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> 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.
> The natural way in AIX would be:
> - Create libpq.so
> - Create libpq.a by 'rm -f libpq.
Tom Lane wrote:
>> In our case, we have libpq.a and libpq.so in the same directory,
>> so unless you link with -brtl you will get a static link
>> (because libpq.a is a static library).
>
> I wonder whether we ought to suppress building (or at least
installing)
> our .a libraries at all on AIX. A
Kevin Brown wrote:
>>> Let me expand a little on some of the peculiarities of
>>> shared libraries on AIX:
>>
>>> - A normal AIX shared library is called libXX.a
>>> It is an 'ar' archive that contains the shared object(s).
>>
>> Ah, so the problem really boils down to funny naming conventions.
Tom Lane wrote:
> "Albe Laurenz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Let me expand a little on some of the peculiarities of
> > shared libraries on AIX:
>
> > - A normal AIX shared library is called libXX.a
> > It is an 'ar' archive that contains the shared object(s).
>
> Ah, so the problem really
"Albe Laurenz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Let me expand a little on some of the peculiarities of
> shared libraries on AIX:
> - A normal AIX shared library is called libXX.a
> It is an 'ar' archive that contains the shared object(s).
Ah, so the problem really boils down to funny naming conve
Tom Lane wrote:
>> It builds fine on AIX 5.3 as long as you tell it to link with
>> libpq.so. Static builds against libpq.a will fail.
>
> Hm. We have been assuming that AIX's problem is that dynamic
libraries
> don't remember their dependencies properly, but maybe the real issue
is
> that it pre
Martijn van Oosterhout writes:
> Static links are going to require it on every platform, not just AIX.
> The question do we want to ask is how easy do we want to make static
> linking, because the same treatment will have to apply to -lssl,
> -lcrypto, -lkrb5, -lk5crypto and quite possibly others.
"Albe Laurenz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> Applied, but without that last part. It builds OK for me on Darwin,
>> which is moderately picky about that sort of thing, but someone should
>> try AIX.
> It builds fine on AIX 5.3 as long as you tell it to link with
> libpq.so. Sta
On Mon, Sep 11, 2006 at 12:13:29PM +0200, Albe Laurenz wrote:
> > Applied, but without that last part. It builds OK for me on Darwin,
> > which is moderately picky about that sort of thing, but someone should
> > try AIX.
>
> It builds fine on AIX 5.3 as long as you tell it to link with
> libpq.s
Tom Lane wrote:
>> Here is a new patch that replaces the previous one; it adds two
>> macros LDAP_LIBS_FE and LDAP_LIBS_BE for frontend and backend,
>> respectively.
>
>> I did not only add them to the Makefile for interfaces/libpq,
>> but also everywhere something is linked against libpq in case
>> Here is a new patch that replaces the previous one; it adds two
>> macros LDAP_LIBS_FE and LDAP_LIBS_BE for frontend and backend,
>> respectively.
>
>> I did not only add them to the Makefile for interfaces/libpq,
>> but also everywhere something is linked against libpq in case
>> somebody link
"Albe Laurenz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Here is a new patch that replaces the previous one; it adds two
> macros LDAP_LIBS_FE and LDAP_LIBS_BE for frontend and backend,
> respectively.
> I did not only add them to the Makefile for interfaces/libpq,
> but also everywhere something is linked ag
On Fri, Sep 08, 2006 at 03:20:00PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> "Albe Laurenz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > I did not only add them to the Makefile for interfaces/libpq,
> > but also everywhere something is linked against libpq in case
> > somebody links static.
> If we do need to start mentioning
"Albe Laurenz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I did not only add them to the Makefile for interfaces/libpq,
> but also everywhere something is linked against libpq in case
> somebody links static.
I intensely dislike that part of the patch, but will work on applying
the rest.
If we do need to star
Tom Lane wrote:
>> I have realized that my modifications in configure.in and
>> src/interfaces/libpq/Makefile to link libpq against
>> OpenLDAP are buggy.
>>
>> Here is a proposed patch to fix it.
[...]
>> # The backend doesn't need everything that's in LIBS, however
>> ! LIBS := $(filter-out -
Tom Lane wrote on September 04, 2006:
> "Albe Laurenz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> # The backend doesn't need everything that's in LIBS, however
>> ! LIBS := $(filter-out -lz -lreadline -ledit -ltermcap -lncurses
-lcurses -lldap_r $(PTHREAD_LIBS), $(LIBS))
>
> This seems pretty risky. Wha
"Albe Laurenz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> # The backend doesn't need everything that's in LIBS, however
> ! LIBS := $(filter-out -lz -lreadline -ledit -ltermcap -lncurses -lcurses
> -lldap_r $(PTHREAD_LIBS), $(LIBS))
This seems pretty risky. What if PTHREAD_LIBS contains -L switches?
They'
I have realized that my modifications in configure.in and
src/interfaces/libpq/Makefile to link libpq against
OpenLDAP are buggy.
Here is a proposed patch to fix it.
I write this to pgsql-hackers too because I want to share
the difficulty I'm facing - maybe somebody has a better
idea.
To handle
21 matches
Mail list logo
