On Thu, Feb 07, 2008 at 12:02:27PM +0000, Stephen Gran wrote: > > That still leaves back-perl. Maybe we can convince Brendan to start > > linking all modules (and the Perl interpretor) against libperl as of the > > 5.10 release that's coming soon?
> I honestly don't know if it makes sense or not. When this was brought > up, several people advanced several theories about why it might be done > this way, and there were as many theories as people. I'd be curious in > the general case why perl is built that way. Because libperl is built as PIC code, which would be substantial overhead for the perl interpreter on i386. In my opinion, this shouldn't be a sufficient rationale to block getting perl DSOs linked right, but then I have rather strong opinions about DSOs and have to regard myself as biased. :) > If it turns out that it can be built so that the binary is linked to > libperl on all arches, linking the modules is fairly straightforward - > changing MakeMaker to always link to -lperl should do it for all the > binary modules. We'll need to trigger a massive binNMU afterwards, but > that should be doable. Even if i386 doesn't start linking to libperl, it seems to me that the MakeMaker change should be doable on a per-arch basis (though preferably without having to move perl-modules from Arch: all to Arch: any). -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. Ubuntu Developer http://www.debian.org/ [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
