|
« Return to Thread: dumb libcinfig?
Re: dumb libcinfig?
by dennisf486
::
Rate this Message:
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.
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?
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? :)
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.
--- 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@...
>
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?
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? :)
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.
--- 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@...
>
« Return to Thread: dumb libcinfig?
| Free embeddable forum powered by Nabble | Forum Help |
