libtool-patches
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: SCO/bugfix patch 7 of 10: Improve SCO platform support


From: Ralf Wildenhues
Subject: Re: SCO/bugfix patch 7 of 10: Improve SCO platform support
Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2005 19:34:39 +0100
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.11

Hi Kean,

* Kean Johnston wrote on Wed, Nov 09, 2005 at 10:18:27AM CET:
> >Well, I believe the SCOABSPATH is not only ugly, but also broken (from a
> >libtool perspective): if you have a package which creates two libraries,
> >one depending on the other, your uninstalled library will link against a
> >previous installed version, if that exists.  While testing, this is
> >wrong.
> I agree its ugly but its a necessary evil. All the point you raise
> about it being generalized are valid, and I will help out as much
> as I can to make that happen. But its going to take a while for
> 2.0 to be adopted. Meanwhile, I believe a new release of 1.5 is
> imminent, and people are likely to upgrade to that, and it will be
> around for a while. The problem is, as things currently stand,
> libtool will create shared libraries that expose a severe security
> flaw.

OK.  I'll take the SCOABSPATH, but would rather like it a bit
differently, if you agree:

The way I understand your intentions, it should suffice if you can
decide at configure time about the absoluteness of the paths (rather
than at link time).  So you could do this instead:

  if test -z "$SCOABSPATH"; then
    archive_cmds='bla bla'
    archive_expsyms_cmds='bla otherbla'
  else
    # ...
  fi

which would be at least a lot more readable.

Could you or Tim resubmit the patch like this for branch-1-5?
Then, when you forward-port to CVS HEAD, leave out the SCOABSPATH part;
we shall try to get -allow-absolute-soname working (and can still think
about moving the hack forward if that doesn't work out).  At the first
occurrence of SCOABSPATH, please add a comment that this thingy will not
be supported, and that it breaks testing of uninstalled libraries.

Would this be ok with you?

Cheers,
Ralf




reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]