On 4/15/14, 2:51 PM, Michael Haubenwallner wrote: > > On 04/15/14 19:59, Chet Ramey wrote: >> On 4/15/14, 1:30 PM, Michael Haubenwallner wrote: >> >>>> Is there some existing system for which this (unsupported) is an actual >>>> problem? >>> >>> It's not the 'unsupported' part. For AIX I've found a non-trivial, but still >>> manpage-following way to create shared libraries with full 'SONAME' support. >>> It was fairly "easy" to implement this way within libtool, because of its >>> already existing many-platforms/many-variants support "framework". >>> What I'm tired of is reinventing the wheel for each home-brewed >>> many-platform >>> sharedlib support again and again. Instead, I'd love to see anyone to at >>> least >>> /allow/ outsourcing the shared library creation to libtool. >> >> You've done the work; I'd like to see you share it. That way I can >> incorporate it into the bash/readline shared object creation script. >> Even the commands to use to create and install shared libraries would >> be useful. I don't have or use AIX, so I rely on those who do. > > Well, here's the most recent description of that non-trivial way: > http://sourceware.org/ml/binutils/2011-02/msg00099.html
Yeah, that's pretty ugly. I'm sure someone at IBM thought it was a good idea at the time. > This is the patch I've used for readline already using some helper scripts: > http://prefix.gentooexperimental.org/hg/prefix-tree/file/db3e43bd681a/sys-libs/readline/files/readline-6.2-aixso.patch > > And here's the wrapper scripts, installed as CHOST-mkexpfile, and ld used by > $CC: > http://sources.gentoo.org/cgi-bin/viewvc.cgi/gentoo-x86/sys-devel/native-cctools/files/aix-2/ > > The problem with these scripts right now is the additional external dependency > during bootstrap, which I can drop with a package-private libtool script, as > in: > http://prefix.gentooexperimental.org/hg/prefix-tree/file/db3e43bd681a/sys-libs/readline/readline-6.2_p1-r1.ebuild#l82 > > Still I doubt you really want to integrate these scripts into readline... Well, it's pretty easy to change the shobj-conf script to use a version of `mkexpfile' if one is found in $PATH and change the various output variables accordingly. One could assume that the existence of mkexpfile implied the existence of your ld wrapper script, or you could simply use ${CC} as your patch does. How widespread is mkexpfile at this point? Is this something I can reasonably expect to improve things for a significant number of people? Chet -- ``The lyf so short, the craft so long to lerne.'' - Chaucer ``Ars longa, vita brevis'' - Hippocrates Chet Ramey, ITS, CWRU [email protected] http://cnswww.cns.cwru.edu/~chet/ _______________________________________________ Bug-readline mailing list [email protected] https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-readline
