Michael Felt added the comment: Vinay - I am in favor, but if the root cause of the holdup is unclear documentation then let's address the root cause.
Stronger, I am in agreement. The first patch I submitted for AIX included using LIBPATH (and could have added LD_LIBRARY_PATH) - but that was rejected. > In my view, the best should not be the enemy of the good, and pragmatism > beats purity. I don't have the resources to test this functionality on all > platforms - just Windows and Linux - and am not familiar with other platforms > like AIX, Solaris or the BSDs. The documentation makes clear that the > behaviour of find_library is system-dependent and makes no promises of a > particular level of consistency, either with dlopen() or across platforms. * Again, basically I agree with the principles. I do not have the resources for all linux platforms, Solaris, BSD, Windows, etc.. * As far as "other platforms" and dlopen() behavior - from the man pages I have referenced I see more similarity than difference. * behaviour of find_library is system-dependent - exactly - but unfortunately, for now AIX is whatever is in the else: box. That it works at all is a statement of the flexibility of AIX - and the sweat and tears of AIX admins to get the pieces to fit. > Nor can we guarantee in the documentation that find_library() will exactly > emulate dlopen(), since that may not hold on all platforms - and in fact, > since Windows is in the mix, there is little point in trying to tie > find_library() behaviour to that of dlopen() directly. Good points. However, while it cannot be guaranteed - upfront - (although I would say that I could make them mimic each other on AIX given the leeway, better directive) - it can be stated as an objective for "posix". :) Windows is windows - maybe someone who knows windows well enough could make something very close. > The purpose of find_library as currently documented seems adequately > described, and the documentation update in my latest patch clarifies things > further. Obviously, here is where we disagree. If it was 'adequately' described you could have used the documentation as a justification years ago. Your change touches on it, but still leaves a great deal to discuss - and especially - convince those who may actually commit. > I'm not sure the agreement you seek will come any time soon, as it has not > come in the last five years; it doesn't seem possible to aim for e.g. exact > behaviour of dlopen(), because (a) it's not the same on Windows and (b) > potentially varies too widely across POSIX platforms. Can you propose some > change to the find_library() contract which you can assure will be > implementable across all platforms? Certainly, fidelity with dlopen() isn't > it. As you mentioned earlier - the implementations are system-dependent - so yes, we could argue for find_library search behavior that emulates dlopen() (better perhaps "LoadLibrary()") - but not define any particular behavior - precisely because it may be different on different platforms. Again, the objective is to replicate that platform's LoadLibrary search behavior - whatever that may be. Once we have established what is needed/desired as a goal, over time implementations will catch up. Linux will be leading the way because you have, presumably, already implemented it. Michael ---------- _______________________________________ Python tracker <rep...@bugs.python.org> <http://bugs.python.org/issue9998> _______________________________________ _______________________________________________ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com
