This is the mail archive of the cygwin-apps@cygwin.com mailing list for the Cygwin project.
Index Nav: | [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index] | |
---|---|---|
Message Nav: | [Date Prev] [Date Next] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] |
Other format: | [Raw text] |
On Fri, May 09, 2003 at 12:02:50AM -0400, Charles Wilson wrote:
Nicholas Wourms wrote:
[Actually, I wrote the following paragraph, not Nicholas -- DA]
Q: Does librpm access any runctions in the supporting libraries, or is librpm independent of them -- and the dependency is derived from rpm.exe?Bottom line, folding in subordinate shared library support to the upstream RPM 4.x release might take a while. So, the question becomes: can we move on to shared RPM development libraries (/usr/lib/librpmdb*.dll) without support for subordinate shared library support?
That is, which is the correct dependency graph:
libz --\ libelf ---\____librpm----rpm.exe libdb ---/ beecrypt --/
or
librpm --\ libz ---\ libelf ----+ ----- rpm.exe libdb ---/ beecrypt --/
It's actually like this:
libz----\ +-librpmio---------------librpm libbz2--/ \ / | \ / | +---librpmdb--+ / / / libpopt------------------+
If the former, then no -- you need to have DLL versions of the other four libs before you can build a shared librpm. If the latter, then yes -- librpm is independent of the other four.
Well, from the looks of it, we'll have to have shared libraries for libbz2, libz, and libpopt first before I can release an rpm-devel package.
I've already done it (modified the 4.1/4.2 builds to use external shared libraries). The plan is to add rpm's enhancements to each of those packages. The only thing we need to do is convince CGF to merge the zlib patches, which I see as "harmless" additions anyhow, and we should be set.
Errm, hello? I'm the maintainer of the zlib package. (cygwin dll itself contains its own implementation of zlib, but it doesn't export the functions). Anyway, I'm VERY leery of modifying such a fundamental library on which so many other packages depend. I'll need lots of handholding and convincing to fork from the official 1.1.4 sources...
OK, so now it looks like rpm-devel will only need shared libs for libbz2 and libpopt.
I've already had one-on-one conversations with Jeff Johnson, and he's filled me in on the nitty-gritty. As I stated before, there's no rush and I think we can get shared lib support in the next version of rpm.
One step at a time.
I don't quite understand this comment; do you mean that we don't need rpm-devel? Actually, I'd like to see it released soon myself. I'm deferring work on an apt-rpm port until the libbz2/libz/libpopt shared lib situation is resolved for rpm-4.1. Does strategy actually make sense?
I really hope this doesn't annoy Nicholas, but I'm prepared to volunteer to crank out the next release (1.7) of popt, just so I can get my hands on the libraries I'll need to push rpm-devel out the door, which in turn will allow to me to move forward with an apt-rpm port.
Cheers, Nicholas
Index Nav: | [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index] | |
---|---|---|
Message Nav: | [Date Prev] [Date Next] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] |