On Sat, 15 Dec 2007, Moinak Ghosh wrote: > Here is another flip question: Does the above change in the > error message worth the code change/addition being introduced ? > How much more code we will be introducing in future if/when we > decide to add support for more compression mechanisms ? > > There is precedent here. There are other utilities in SUNWcsu > that link with libraries in other packages. For eg. svccfg links > with libxml2 from SUNWlxml and libxml2 in turn links with libz. > So not having SUNWlxml and SUNWzlib will partially break smf. > There are other examples like /usr/bin/at, /usr/bin/id, > /usr/bin/pkill all in SUNWcsu. All these will break if SUNWzlib > is not installed. In this light do we need to do anything special > for lofiadm ? > > However there is yet another thing to consider. If we do introduce > another compression mechanism in future we'd be linking lofiadm > with another library. Since it is a pluggable compression > technique using dlopen seems useful, but the dlopen code should > be moved into a separate function. In addition dlopen should be > used without an absolute pathname, see dlopen(3C).
Okay, I'm convinced that the dlopen should be in a separate function and that the absolute pathname shouldn't be used. > Also the error message should be something like: > libfoo not found, Foo compression is unavailable. This is better than what I had. Here's an updated webrev - http://cr.opensolaris.org/~aalok/6640490/ Could Jean and one more person look at this again, please? Alok
