Re: Re: dumb libcinfig?

by Jeremy Tregunna-2 :: Rate this Message:

On 19-Jun-09, at 12:16 AM, dennisf486 wrote:

> Jeremy, if you don't agree with the FSF's copyright waiver, maybe
> you can work it from the other end: lobby the major Linux
> distributions to change their runtime linker to no longer need to
> rely on ldconfig. I bet Canonical would be interested in fixing
> this on Ubuntu; from there it would likely go upstream into Debian.
> (Do Redhat based distros have the same problem? What about
> Gentoo?) If all the major Linux distros fix this, it might shame
> the GNU project into modernizing it themselves.

I deal with FreeBSD on a daily basis, and have for some time now. I
have no desire to lobby anyone to change something that I don't use
anymore. This affects all GNU ld based systems as well, not just
Debian and likewise distributions.

> Guys, there's no point in beating up on Jeremy over this. I
> disagree with his position (I'd just as soon patch in a workaround
> to run ldconfig in the makefile, and so what if the linker ought to
> be smarter), but I don't maintain the build - he does. And I
> believe him when he says he's been answering this topic since 1994
> and would have liked to have patched it but didn't want to sign the
> copyright waiver to do it - why would anyone make that up?

I don't maintain the build, I've just been using and helping develop
Io since 2003. As I said before, and I'll say again, I won't sign a
copyright waiver to contribute code for free to any project.

> Jeremy, what do you think of the idea of just echoing "pssst! run
> ldconfig dummy!" (not in those words) if a Debian/Linux system is
> detected? I mean, just for the purpose of you not having to answer
> threads like this in the future, right? :)

I'm ok with that, but it'd have to come after all the addons are
built, otherwise it'll get lost in the build logs. It also assumes
that users actually read what's on their screen when they've been
returned to the prompt, which I find a 50/50 ratio of who do, to who
doesn't.

> To further nudge the discussion back onto practical terms, I want to
> throw out here that automake's ./configure script exists to solve
> this very set of problems: detecting the user's build environment
> so the right makefile operations get run. I know automake is crufty
> and all, but I've always found it to be reliable at configuring my
> projects for cross platform builds. Not sure how Io's "trick" of
> using the vm to in turn build the addons would interact with
> automake though.

I suggested to Steve we move to autoconf before the new build system
was written, he was not against it, if someone would actively maintain
it going forward. I couldn't commit to maintaining it for an
undetermined period of time, as I was working on other projects
primarily back then.

> --- In iolanguage@..., Jeremy Tregunna
> <jeremy.tregunna@...> wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 18-Jun-09, at 11:50 AM, bblochl2 wrote:
>>
>>> --- In iolanguage@..., "bblochl2" <bblochl2@> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I am always interested in bugs ore faults of componenets, so as I
>>>> found the intersting posting of Jeremy Tregunna from Mon Jun 8,
>>>> 2009 4:42 am (Bug Report: "make install" on Ubuntu should run
>>>> "ldconfig" as final - on the iolanguage yahoo!-group) I tracked the
>>>> net for GNU ld, ldconfig and Jeremy Tregunna in any combination. I
>>>> was surprised how sparse the tracks and how secret his postings
>>>> were, that he started from 1994 in his own oppinion? (Jeremy
>>>> Tregunna in his posting of Mon Jun 8, 2009 4:42 am - Bug Report:
>>>> "make install" on Ubuntu should run "ldconfig" as final - on the
>>>> iolanguage yahoo!-group)
>>>>
>>>> The oldest posts are leeching posts from 1989, I could not find any
>>>> leeching or seeding befor 1998? (Topics: netscape problem ... The
>>>> CampGround 17 May 1998 17:37:59 -0000, problem with libXt.so.6... 2
>>>> Feb 1998 08:44:30 -0000) No one from 1994, not even befor 1998.
>>>>
>>>> Well, under that given circumstances I would not wave with a
>>>> contract. The net never foregtets any entry, even ones from 1994. I
>>>> recommend to qualify his statement yourself: "If I didn't have to
>>>> sign a copyright waiver, I'd submit a patch for more modern
>>>> behaviour." (Jeremy Tregunna in his posting of Mon Jun 8, 2009 4:42
>>>> am - Bug Report: "make install" on Ubuntu should run "ldconfig" as
>>>> final - on the iolanguage yahoo!-group)
>>>>
>>>> To my regret I found no usable hint for the possible source of the
>>>> weakness in ldconfig and I am still groping in the dark and so we
>>>> all still have to live with the dumb ldconfig.
>>>>
>>>> Regards
>>>>
>>>> BB
>>>>
>>>
>>> I did some more work on that topic in the meantime. I checked the
>>> actual package debian list http://packages.debian.org/stable/allpackages
>>> and the SUSE-List as well http://en.opensuse.org/Package_List/11.1/GNOME-LiveCD-i686
>>> . There is no libconfig-file listed. I also browsed the history and
>>> the bug-history of debian as well and found from different postings
>>> that that file was removed about 2008. (Indeed there had been some
>>> minor weakness reported.)
>>>
>>> I do not know if anyone really needs an improvement for that
>>> package? ("If I didn't have to sign a copyright waiver, I'd submit a
>>> patch for more modern behaviour.")
>>>
>>> So I think that libconfig-chapter is closed - for shure for me. Let
>>> us do some usefull work for that libiovmall-problem.
>>
>> I was not talking about libconfig at all, not sure what libconfig is
>> to be honest. The ldconfig problem still exists, and will continue to
>> be a problem for MANY software libraries for the forseeable future.
>> That is the piece of software I take exception to, as there is no
>> need
>> for it to be so retarded about new libraries installed into known
>> paths. The runtime linker can check those paths for changes compared
>> to its cache, invalidate the cache and cache the libraries again, at
>> minimal overhead at runtime. (We're talking milliseconds.)
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Jeremy Tregunna
>> jeremy.tregunna@...
>>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

Regards,

Jeremy Tregunna
jeremy.tregunna@...

« Return to Thread: dumb libcinfig?