2006/12/1, Gregory Shimansky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
Alexey Petrenko wrote: > 2006/12/1, Gregory Shimansky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: >> On Thursday 30 November 2006 17:21 Oleg Khaschansky wrote: >> > > No, Sun links against X11 and ALSA and doesn't use dlopen. It doesn't >> > > seem to be a problem for anyone. Why can't we? >> > >> > Yes, I think we can do this with X11, win32 API, etc. But we need to >> > have the right set of headers and stublibs to build the wrappers then. >> > This means that if you don't have X11 you can't build awt. >> >> The requirements on developers may be quite wide. I don't see a >> problem that a >> developer who works on awt has to have X11 installed. It seems to me >> quite a >> sane requirement. >> >> > > It is dynamic linking. I just don't like it that we have to >> *guess* the >> > > library name. It should be as few such cases as possible. Or we'll >> get >> > > the bug reports like in your URL. >> > >> > Yes, ld approach is better from this POW. But transition to it could >> > be a bit more complicated then adding some heuristics to the existing >> > "dlopen" code. >> >> I didn't mean it should be changed today. I mean that there is no need >> to hide >> dependencies. It is not the way it is done in Linux world. If some >> library is >> needed, it is needed, and it should be installed. Distributions handle it >> pretty well AFAIK. > Don't you need to specify exact version of library you depend on? It is up to distributions to care about the exact version of libraries that they provide. When they build and test harmony with these libraries the exact version will be recorded in the package.
I wanted to say that since package dependency specifies exact library version then we can load exact version with dlopen without much heuristics.
SY, Alexey
