This is a draft on how to proceed with the link_all_deplibs problem.
The idea is to expose the complexity portably to the user.
The rationale is that people get bitten by this complexity anyway,
so there is little gain in hiding it. At the same time, systems
without needed-following linker should
Ralf Wildenhues <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
[definitions]
my head is already swimming because "dependent", "dependency" and
"dependence" all are very subtly different and have different
meanings in different contexts.
i like the term "upstream" and "downstream" because a moment's
thought in c
* Thien-Thi Nguyen wrote on Wed, Nov 24, 2004 at 11:53:25AM CET:
> Ralf Wildenhues <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>[definitions]
>
> my head is already swimming because "dependent", "dependency" and
> "dependence" all are very subtly different and have different
> meanings in different context
Ralf Wildenhues <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
[definitions]
Does that make more sense?
yes thanks, i find "base" and "derived" easier to understand.
What exactly do you mean with these terms? (I have a vague idea
but would rather like to know a precise definition.)
in trying to be mo
On Wed, Nov 24, 2004 at 02:05:50PM +0100, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
> * Thien-Thi Nguyen wrote on Wed, Nov 24, 2004 at 11:53:25AM CET:
> > Ralf Wildenhues <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> >[definitions]
> >
> > my head is already swimming because "dependent", "dependency" and
> > "dependence" a
On Wed, 24 Nov 2004, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
Definitions:
direct dependency:
A program or library has a direct dependency on a library, if it depends
on some interface that library provides, see node Interfaces for a more
thorough description.
More classifications should applied for "direct dependen
On Wed, Nov 24, 2004 at 07:47:54PM -0600, Bob Friesenhahn wrote:
> On Wed, 24 Nov 2004, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
> >direct dependency:
> >A program or library has a direct dependency on a library, if it depends
> >on some interface that library provides, see node Interfaces for a more
> >thorough des
This is a great document. A few comments --
On Wed, Nov 24, 2004 at 02:05:50PM +0100, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
> needed-following linker:
> A system with a needed-following linker has a means to record
> dependencies on other libraries within a library (based on the soname of
> the dependency libra
On Wed, Nov 24, 2004 at 10:14:35PM -0800, Noah Misch wrote:
> For safety, libtool would assume that unadorned dependent libraries contribute
> to the API. An option, say `-private-libs', would mark the start of normal
> dependencies. For example, the link command for libbar might look like this:
On Thu, 25 Nov 2004, Joe Orton wrote:
On Wed, Nov 24, 2004 at 10:14:35PM -0800, Noah Misch wrote:
For safety, libtool would assume that unadorned dependent libraries contribute
to the API. An option, say `-private-libs', would mark the start of normal
dependencies. For example, the link command f
On Wed, 2004-11-24 at 10:19 +0100, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
> Libtool and inter-library dependencies
> ==
>
> needed-following linker:
> A system with a needed-following linker has a means to record
> dependencies on other libraries within a library (based on the
Hi Scott, everybody else,
* Scott James Remnant wrote on Fri, Nov 26, 2004 at 07:32:39AM CET:
> On Wed, 2004-11-24 at 10:19 +0100, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
>
> > needed-following linker:
> > A system with a needed-following linker has a means to record
> > dependencies on other libraries within a l
On Fri, 26 Nov 2004, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
It may be that they fixed it, but didn't add appropriate NEEDEDs to some
of their shipped libraries. We'll need to take this into account if
that's the case.
Actually, I don't have a clue about Solaris, I merely thought I saw a
statement to that extent s
On Wed, Nov 24, 2004 at 10:19:44AM +0100, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
> Before Libtool version 2.2, the handling of inter-library
> dependencies has ignored the fact that some system linkers are smart
> enough to figure out the library dependencies of dependent libraries
> themselves, and always linked
* Albert Chin wrote on Fri, Nov 26, 2004 at 10:09:31PM CET:
> On Wed, Nov 24, 2004 at 10:19:44AM +0100, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
> > Before Libtool version 2.2, the handling of inter-library
> > dependencies has ignored the fact that some system linkers are smart
> > enough to figure out the library
Hey Ralf!
Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
* Albert Chin wrote on Fri, Nov 26, 2004 at 10:09:31PM CET:
On Wed, Nov 24, 2004 at 10:19:44AM +0100, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
Before Libtool version 2.2, the handling of inter-library
dependencies has ignored the fact that some system linkers are smart
enough to figu
* Gary V. Vaughan wrote on Sat, Nov 27, 2004 at 07:47:35PM CET:
> Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
> >* Albert Chin wrote on Fri, Nov 26, 2004 at 10:09:31PM CET:
> >
> >My proposal: On systems with "smart linker": for every interface
> >change, only update the set of libraries and programs exposed to
> >this
On Nov 24, 2004, Ralf Wildenhues <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On the other hand, on systems without a needed-following linker, it is
> necessary to explicitly list all dependent libraries.
It's a bit more complicated than this, actually. Some linkers are
smart enough to look for dependencies, bu
18 matches
Mail list logo
