[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: FFI again

From: Eli Zaretskii
Subject: Re: FFI again
Date: Sun, 06 Oct 2013 22:04:30 +0300

> From: Stefan Monnier <address@hidden>
> Cc: address@hidden,  address@hidden
> Date: Sun, 06 Oct 2013 14:17:30 -0400
> >> > I really don't like this idea.  You either force users to have the Emacs
> >> > headers, Emacs import library, and a C compiler available to install a
> >> > package or you provide pre-compiled binaries for popular platforms and
> >> > create an ABI versioning nightmare.
> >> The plan would be to require headers and a C compiler.
> >> Precompiled libraries could be considered for the Windows platform, but
> >> only if we can keep the versioning nightmare in check.
> > I don't think the nightmare is as bad as it sounds.  Windows users
> > already keep such nightmares in check, including with Emacs.
> There's some hope, indeed, but notice that the problem is a bit more
> serious than what we currently have for libgnutls and friends, because
> that precompiled code needs to link both with lib<foo> and with Emacs,
> and there's a potential version mismatch on both sides.

Just like libgnutls today, which has to link with libnettle,
linhogweed, libgmp, and p11-kit (to say nothing of the ubiquitous
libintl and zlib).

reply via email to

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