Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> No it's not right. No software should be required to care about the
> implementation details of the library it's using, *especially* when
> dynamic linking on an OS that gets this right (such as GNU/Linux).
Just a detail: The dependence on gmp is not merely an implementation
detail, it's part of the interface (the public nettle functions use
gmp's mpz_t for passing around bignums).
The reason I ("upstream") recommend that applications using nettle
link explicitly with -lnettle -lgmp, is that that seems to be the
easiest portable way to get correct linking, across various systems,
and with both dynamic and static linking. Debian priorities may well
be different, since you always use dynamic linking and ELF.
Do the chiark programs use the public-key parts of nettle?
I consider it a bug that programs that aren't using gmp-dependent
functions of nettle still must to link with gmp at runtime (assuming
that nettle was configured with public key support, and dynamic
linking is used; this worked better with static linking). A future
version of nettle will split the library into two files, one that
depends on gmp, and one that does not.
Regards,
/Niels
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
