This is the mail archive of the libc-hacker@sourceware.cygnus.com mailing list for the glibc project.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]

Re: libdb and 2 major numbers


Thorsten Kukuk <kukuk@weber.uni-paderborn.de> writes:

The problem with this solution is that th soname is wrong.  It has to
be libdb.so.2 and not libdb1.so.2.

> - How could I prevent make install to generate a /usr/lib/libdb.so
>   file for db ? For db2, it is ok.

Some extra Makefile hacks could do this.

> - gnu/lib-names.h: With this hack, we have 2 entries:
>   #define LIBDB1_SO       "libdb1.so.2"
>   #define LIBDB_SO        "libdb.so.3"
>   With other solutions, LIBDB_SO could be libdb.so.2, both is bad.

This isn't that bad, I think.  If an application really needs this
information it could use

	#ifdef LIBDB1_SO
	# define LIBNAME LIBDB1_SO
	#else
	# define LIBNAME LIBDB_SO
	#endif

> - scripts/test-installation.pl will fail.

I don't know the reason why this should fail but it is certainly
correctable.

> Are there any chances to fix all of this problems ? Or should I
> generate separate packages for glibc 2.0 binary compatibility and not
> add-ons ?

I would love to have an add-on.  If this is too difficult we could
live without this, though.

I think we should investigate the possibility to avoid using the rules
for building the library objects and instead write own versions in the
db/Makefile.  This should solve the problems.

-- Uli
---------------.      drepper at gnu.org  ,-.   1325 Chesapeake Terrace
Ulrich Drepper  \    ,-------------------'   \  Sunnyvale, CA 94089 USA
Cygnus Solutions `--' drepper at cygnus.com   `------------------------


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]