Re: Are libtool .la files in non-dev library packages bugs?
On Tue, Aug 20, 2002 at 02:10:18PM +0200, Eduard Bloch wrote: Because of naivity of some programers. I suggest to begin getting rid of such kludges and forbid usage of .la files at runtimer in the Policy for Sarge. Policy is not a stick to beat with. If there is a bug, report it as such, and leave it to the maintainer and upstream developers to fix it if in doubt. Thanks, Marcus -- `Rhubarb is no Egyptian god.' GNU http://www.gnu.org[EMAIL PROTECTED] Marcus Brinkmann The Hurd http://www.gnu.org/software/hurd/ [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.marcus-brinkmann.de/
Re: Are libtool .la files in non-dev library packages bugs?
On Sat, 24 Aug 2002, Marcus Brinkmann wrote: On Tue, Aug 20, 2002 at 02:10:18PM +0200, Eduard Bloch wrote: Because of naivity of some programers. I suggest to begin getting rid of such kludges and forbid usage of .la files at runtimer in the Policy for Sarge. Policy is not a stick to beat with. If there is a bug, report it as such, and leave it to the maintainer and upstream developers to fix it if in doubt. It is also our best-practices document. I certainly would expect policy to tell us (should) not to let libtool leave its crap behind. This is not using policy as a stick. -- One disk to rule them all, One disk to find them. One disk to bring them all and in the darkness grind them. In the Land of Redmond where the shadows lie. -- The Silicon Valley Tarot Henrique Holschuh
Re: Are libtool .la files in non-dev library packages bugs?
On Mon, 19 Aug 2002, Ben Collins wrote: Not only that, it's only useful for linking, so has no reason being in the primary runtime. ltdl needs them at runtime. Then ltdl is broken. How does one install libfoo.so.1 and libfoo.so.2 and only have libfoo.la, and ltdl expect to work? I was always under the impression that ltdl only really needed the .la files on defective OS's, not on linux.. Just look in a .la, there is nothing in there that can't be properly done by ld.so. Jason
Re: Are libtool .la files in non-dev library packages bugs?
On 20 Aug 2002 01:50:22 +0200 Luca Barbieri [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: According to Junichi's manual they should be in -dev packages (that makes sense, since they are only used by libtool builds). My solution to the problem would be to create libwhatever-la packages which contains .la file only, if other runtime binaries want them. It has other implications, and probably technically most clean, but some people might disagree. Nevertheless, it creates a lot of packages just for the sake of ltdl, which might be used or not used. I am not confident enoughif it's better than using Replaces on every libwhatever* package, but it is probably cleaner. regards, junichi -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.netfort.gr.jp/~dancer
Re: Are libtool .la files in non-dev library packages bugs?
Ben Collins wrote: Then ltdl is broken. How does one install libfoo.so.1 and libfoo.so.2 and only have libfoo.la, and ltdl expect to work? Broken... So, i guess that kdelibs3 (4:2.2.2-13) is also broken... $ dpkg -L kdelibs3 | grep \\.la$ /usr/lib/libDCOP.la /usr/lib/dcopserver.la /usr/lib/libkdefakes.la /usr/lib/libkdeui.la /usr/lib/libkdesu.la /usr/lib/libkssl.la diverted by kdelibs3-crypto to: /usr/lib/libkssl-nossl.la /usr/lib/libkjs.la /usr/lib/libksycoca.la /usr/lib/kio_uiserver.la /usr/lib/klauncher.la ... -- Roberto Gordo - Free Software Engineer Linalco Especialistas en Linux y Software Libre Tel: +34-91-5970074 Fax: +34-91-5970083
Re: Are libtool .la files in non-dev library packages bugs?
Roberto Gordo Saez [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: $ dpkg -L kdelibs3 | grep \\.la$ /usr/lib/libDCOP.la /usr/lib/dcopserver.la /usr/lib/libkdefakes.la /usr/lib/libkdeui.la /usr/lib/libkdesu.la /usr/lib/libkssl.la diverted by kdelibs3-crypto to: /usr/lib/libkssl-nossl.la /usr/lib/libkjs.la /usr/lib/libksycoca.la /usr/lib/kio_uiserver.la /usr/lib/klauncher.la A wild guess: I don't know about the files named lib*.la, but the other ones could be plug-ins. ltdl opens the .la file to find out the actual filename of the shared object. Remember that libtool generates different filenames under different platforms (e.g. libfoo.so.0 vs libfoo.so.9 -- for whatever reason -- vs libfoo.sl.1). Jason is right that for *our* purposes this is The Wrong Thing To Do(TM). -- Marcelo | This signature was automatically generated with [EMAIL PROTECTED] | Signify v1.07. For this and other cool products, | check out http://www.debian.org/
Re: Are libtool .la files in non-dev library packages bugs?
Marcelo E. Magallon wrote: A wild guess: I don't know about the files named lib*.la, but the other ones could be plug-ins. ltdl opens the .la file to find out the actual Yes, you are right, but... why does a plugin need both .so and .la files? (Please, CC to me also) -- Roberto Gordo - Free Software Engineer Linalco Especialistas en Linux y Software Libre Tel: +34-91-5970074 Fax: +34-91-5970083
Re: Are libtool .la files in non-dev library packages bugs?
#include hallo.h * Roberto Gordo Saez [Tue, Aug 20 2002, 02:01:44PM]: A wild guess: I don't know about the files named lib*.la, but the other ones could be plug-ins. ltdl opens the .la file to find out the actual Yes, you are right, but... why does a plugin need both .so and .la files? Because of naivity of some programers. I suggest to begin getting rid of such kludges and forbid usage of .la files at runtimer in the Policy for Sarge. Yes, that would hit KDE stuff, ltld and librep but the .la insanity must be stoped. Here. Now. SuSE and Redhat do not care, they prefer recompiling the whole stuff just to change the library version. We should not follow bad examples. Gruss/Regards, Eduard. -- Lieber ein Pinguin, der läuft, als ein Fenster, das hängt.
Re: Are libtool .la files in non-dev library packages bugs?
Roberto Gordo Saez [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Marcelo E. Magallon wrote: A wild guess: I don't know about the files named lib*.la, but the other ones could be plug-ins. ltdl opens the .la file to find out the actual Yes, you are right, but... why does a plugin need both .so and .la files? Because when you use ltdl's dlopen replacement, the function looks for the .la file instead of the .so file. Let me rephrase: the plug-in filename can be whatever you want (no dlopen-wanabe implementation that I've seen is *that* stupid), but libtool produces filanames named after the platform's own conventions. So, under Linux you get libfoo.so and under HP/UX you get libfoo.sl. *That* information is stored in the .la file. You pass the .la filename to dl_open, which opens it, searches for the actual shared object filename and does whatever voodoo your platform requires in order to dlopen a file. Morale: if the .la file is there for this purpose (plug-ins), it shouldn't be in /usr/lib in the first place (and neither should the other libfoo.so* files). If the .la file is just a regular libtool-feels-all-cozy-when-it-finds-it .la file, it should be in the -dev package. -- Marcelo | It wasn't blood in general he couldn't stand the sight [EMAIL PROTECTED] | of, it was just his blood in particular that was so | upsetting. | -- (Terry Pratchett, Sourcery)
Re: Are libtool .la files in non-dev library packages bugs?
Christian Marillat [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Adam Heath [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On Mon, 19 Aug 2002, Ben Collins wrote: Not only that, it's only useful for linking, so has no reason being in the primary runtime. ltdl needs them at runtime. and librep9 too. I forgot my last changes in librep9 : librep (0.16.1-2) unstable; urgency=low * Move librep.la in -dev package -- Christian Marillat [EMAIL PROTECTED] Wed, 10 Jul 2002 16:28:40 +0200 Christian
Re: Are libtool .la files in non-dev library packages bugs?
On Tue, Aug 20, 2002 at 12:25:57PM +0200, Roberto Gordo Saez wrote: Ben Collins wrote: Then ltdl is broken. How does one install libfoo.so.1 and libfoo.so.2 and only have libfoo.la, and ltdl expect to work? Broken... So, i guess that kdelibs3 (4:2.2.2-13) is also broken... Absolutely. libtool and libltdl are a flaming heap of cow dung that encourage programmers to use black boxes to achieve portable results, at the expense of simplicity and the ability of the individual programmer to fix linking bugs. Autoconf and automake are both tools that are useful to developers on GNU platforms; the only people who benefit from the existence of libltdl (and libtool to a lesser extent) are users of legacy Unix platforms. Steve Langasek postmodern programmer pgpBtSB2OhO1F.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Are libtool .la files in non-dev library packages bugs?
Eduard Bloch [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Because of naivity of some programers. I suggest to begin getting rid of such kludges and forbid usage of .la files at runtimer in the Policy for Sarge. I beg your pardon? Which naiveness? That particular bit of libtool solves a very real problem: dlopen is *not* portable. I did said I was guessing. This could be just a mistake on the maintainer's part. This could be a plug-in installed in the wrong place. Please figure out what the files are before spouting more bile. -- Marcelo | It's a god-eat-god world. [EMAIL PROTECTED] | -- (Terry Pratchett, Small Gods)
Re: Are libtool .la files in non-dev library packages bugs?
#include hallo.h * Marcelo E. Magallon [Tue, Aug 20 2002, 02:24:21PM]: I've seen is *that* stupid), but libtool produces filanames named after the platform's own conventions. So, under Linux you get libfoo.so and under HP/UX you get libfoo.sl. *That* information is stored in the .la file. You pass the .la filename to dl_open, which opens it, searches Yes, and this breaks the whole idea of SONAMES. I wonder how such shit has ever been allowed to enter Debian. Gruss/Regards, Eduard. -- The feature you'd like to have is probably already installed on your Linux system.
Re: Are libtool .la files in non-dev library packages bugs?
Eduard Bloch [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Yes, and this breaks the whole idea of SONAMES. I wonder how such shit has ever been allowed to enter Debian. Are we still talking about plug-ins here? I had that impression. Say, how is a SONAME useful for a plugin? A plug-in is not something you link directly into a program (that's the whole point of it), so it has no bussiness living in any directory that the dynamic linker searches. For the purposes of a plug-in, a namespace is as good a soname. If you desing your plug-in system in any sensible way, the user tells you open foo and your program will go looking for /usr/lib/bar/plugin-foo.so or whatever naming scheme makes you happy. The point is, you'll have your very own area where you can set up your very own mess. -- Marcelo | He'd been particularly pleased with Manchester. [EMAIL PROTECTED] | -- Crowley contemplating his achievements |(Terry Pratchett Neil Gaiman, Good Omens)
Re: Are libtool .la files in non-dev library packages bugs?
#include hallo.h * Marcelo E. Magallon [Tue, Aug 20 2002, 04:19:02PM]: Yes, and this breaks the whole idea of SONAMES. I wonder how such shit has ever been allowed to enter Debian. Are we still talking about plug-ins here? I had that impression. Say, how is a SONAME useful for a plugin? A plug-in is not something Do we? Plugins do not need soname, but then they should be keeped outside of ld.so search paths. you link directly into a program (that's the whole point of it), so it has no bussiness living in any directory that the dynamic linker Exactly. A program should know how the plugin name called and it should manage the binary compatibility in their own ways. Why does a plugin solution need an additional magic file to resolve the plugin, stored in between other, SONAMEd libs? searches. For the purposes of a plug-in, a namespace is as good a soname. If you desing your plug-in system in any sensible way, the user tells you open foo and your program will go looking for /usr/lib/bar/plugin-foo.so or whatever naming scheme makes you happy. The point is, you'll have your very own area where you can set up your very own mess. Exactly. Get rid of .la files, their usage to resolve path names is a nasty kludge. Gruss/Regards, Eduard. -- -!- Gromitt_ is now known as Gromitt @Getty oh scheisse, gromitt wird wach @Getty da hab ich jetzt soviele lines gemacht in den letzten 24 std. @Getty und jetzt kommt der wieder ;) -- #debian.de
Re: Are libtool .la files in non-dev library packages bugs?
On Tue, 20 Aug 2002, Marcelo E. Magallon wrote: I beg your pardon? Which naiveness? That particular bit of libtool solves a very real problem: dlopen is *not* portable. Careful here, dlopen is defined by SUSv2, all the libtool hackage is does is allow OS's to get away with not conforming to SUSv2 for longer : Jason
Re: Are libtool .la files in non-dev library packages bugs?
On Mon, Aug 19, 2002 at 10:06:20PM -0600, Jason Gunthorpe wrote: On Mon, 19 Aug 2002, Ben Collins wrote: Not only that, it's only useful for linking, so has no reason being in the primary runtime. ltdl needs them at runtime. Then ltdl is broken. How does one install libfoo.so.1 and libfoo.so.2 and only have libfoo.la, and ltdl expect to work? I was always under the impression that ltdl only really needed the .la files on defective OS's, not on linux.. It also needs them if: a) the application makes an lt_dlopen() call explicitly on the .la file (this should be replaced by lt_dlopenext(), but watch out for #157230) b) the .so is not in the same directory as the .la Both of these issues can and should be corrected. c) dlpreopen and related features have been used and libtool was instructed to link statically. I can't think of any sane reason why you would do that on Debian. (Other reasons? I can't think of any) -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | Dept. of Computing, `. `' | Imperial College, `- -- | London, UK pgpPQizsoKUsI.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Are libtool .la files in non-dev library packages bugs?
On Tue, Aug 20, 2002 at 02:24:21PM +0200, Marcelo E. Magallon wrote: Roberto Gordo Saez [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Marcelo E. Magallon wrote: A wild guess: I don't know about the files named lib*.la, but the other ones could be plug-ins. ltdl opens the .la file to find out the actual Yes, you are right, but... why does a plugin need both .so and .la files? Because when you use ltdl's dlopen replacement, the function looks for the .la file instead of the .so file. Not so. lt_dlopen() looks for the exact file you specify. lt_dlopenext() looks first for .la, then for whatever the local system conventionally uses (.so on gnu platforms). Both are quite capable of operating on the .so directly, as long as you don't use some of the more arcane features (dlpreopen and so forth). -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | Dept. of Computing, `. `' | Imperial College, `- -- | London, UK pgpSQVtnHIsyM.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Are libtool .la files in non-dev library packages bugs?
On Tue, Aug 20, 2002 at 10:43:58AM -0600, Jason Gunthorpe wrote: On Tue, 20 Aug 2002, Marcelo E. Magallon wrote: I beg your pardon? Which naiveness? That particular bit of libtool solves a very real problem: dlopen is *not* portable. Careful here, dlopen is defined by SUSv2, all the libtool hackage is does is allow OS's to get away with not conforming to SUSv2 for longer : It also supports platforms which do not have shared libraries. I didn't think SuSv2 actually required them (can't see anything that does, references welcome). -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | Dept. of Computing, `. `' | Imperial College, `- -- | London, UK pgp6lyX23uthH.pgp Description: PGP signature
Are libtool .la files in non-dev library packages bugs?
According to Junichi's manual they should be in -dev packages (that makes sense, since they are only used by libtool builds). The following packages might be affected. The list only includes packages from unstable in libs/ with digits in the name. hamlib1 kdelibs3 kdelibs3-cups libaspell10 libcapi20 libdcopc1 libelastic8 libesmtp5 libflux0 libfwbuilder2 libgdkxft0 libgoops5 libgretl0 libguile9 libicq1 libkdenetwork1 libkdexparts1 libkonq3 libkore0 libkscan1 libkxmleditor1 liblircclient0 liblzo1 libmagick5 libmagick++5 libmimelib1 libmng1 libprelude0 libpspell-ispell1 librrd0 libsword1 libyahoo0 vflib2 signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: Are libtool .la files in non-dev library packages bugs?
On Tue, Aug 20, 2002 at 01:50:22AM +0200, Luca Barbieri wrote: According to Junichi's manual they should be in -dev packages (that makes sense, since they are only used by libtool builds). Yes, it's a bug. Consider that the .la file is usually without soname (e.g. libfoo.la) it will clash when the next so version of the same lib is added to the dist. Not only that, it's only useful for linking, so has no reason being in the primary runtime. -- Debian - http://www.debian.org/ Linux 1394 - http://linux1394.sourceforge.net/ Subversion - http://subversion.tigris.org/ Deqo - http://www.deqo.com/
Re: Are libtool .la files in non-dev library packages bugs?
On Mon, 19 Aug 2002, Ben Collins wrote: Not only that, it's only useful for linking, so has no reason being in the primary runtime. ltdl needs them at runtime.
Re: Are libtool .la files in non-dev library packages bugs?
Adam Heath [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On Mon, 19 Aug 2002, Ben Collins wrote: Not only that, it's only useful for linking, so has no reason being in the primary runtime. ltdl needs them at runtime. and librep9 too. Christian
Re: Are libtool .la files in non-dev library packages bugs?
ltdl needs them at runtime. If so, how should parallel installation be handled? How does one decide whether the .la file should be put in the main package or the dev one? The shared library packaging manual should be updated to included this information if this is the case. signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: Are libtool .la files in non-dev library packages bugs?
On Mon, Aug 19, 2002 at 07:29:23PM -0500, Adam Heath wrote: On Mon, 19 Aug 2002, Ben Collins wrote: Not only that, it's only useful for linking, so has no reason being in the primary runtime. ltdl needs them at runtime. Then ltdl is broken. How does one install libfoo.so.1 and libfoo.so.2 and only have libfoo.la, and ltdl expect to work? Broken... -- Debian - http://www.debian.org/ Linux 1394 - http://linux1394.sourceforge.net/ Subversion - http://subversion.tigris.org/ Deqo - http://www.deqo.com/
Re: Are libtool .la files in non-dev library packages bugs?
On Mon, 19 Aug 2002, Ben Collins wrote: Then ltdl is broken. How does one install libfoo.so.1 and libfoo.so.2 and only have libfoo.la, and ltdl expect to work? libtool itself is broken, but I digress.
Re: Are libtool .la files in non-dev library packages bugs?
On Mon, Aug 19, 2002 at 09:22:54PM -0400, Ben Collins wrote: On Mon, Aug 19, 2002 at 07:29:23PM -0500, Adam Heath wrote: On Mon, 19 Aug 2002, Ben Collins wrote: Not only that, it's only useful for linking, so has no reason being in the primary runtime. ltdl needs them at runtime. Then ltdl is broken. How does one install libfoo.so.1 and libfoo.so.2 and only have libfoo.la, and ltdl expect to work? Possibly you can't. *shrug* Cheers, aj -- Anthony Towns [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/ I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred. ``If you don't do it now, you'll be one year older when you do.''
