On Wed, Jun 29, 2005 at 10:32:17PM -0400, Igor Pechtchanski wrote: >On Thu, 30 Jun 2005, Bas van Gompel wrote: >> Sorry for the slow reply... >> Op Mon, 27 Jun 2005 00:17:01 -0400 schreef Charles Wilson: >> : Bas van Gompel wrote: >> [Re-adding attribution:] >> + > Charles Wilson: >> [...] >> : > : without using execvp(). >> [...] >> : > : Plus, alternatives itself needs to be smart >> : > : about when to use a wrap executable, and when to use "normal" >> symlinks. >> [...] >> : > Certainly. I'd think generally one should only wrap executables. >> : > (*and take real special care of dll's.*) >> : >> : Yes. >> >> What I meant to say was: ``Special care should be taken *not* to wrap >> DLLs, although they appear as executables in the file-system.'' > >Umm, why not? I mean, the mechanism for wrapping DLLs is very different >than that of wrapping executables (and much more involved), but isn't >there a possibility of writing a "wrapdll.dll" that looks up the name of >the DLL in the /etc/alternatives database, dlopen's it, and emulates all >of its functions somehow? ISTR something like this done in my OS class >ages ago, but don't recall the exact details. Am I misremembering?
It seems plausible, and maybe even useful, to me, FWIW. cgf