Hi Juanjo! On Sat, 30 Aug 2008 09:19:19 +0200, Juan Jose Garcia-Ripoll wrote: > On Sat, Aug 30, 2008 at 1:07 AM, Luca Capello <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> This bug has nothing to do with the rpath issue (now solved [1]). >> Thus, the problem remains: is there any particular reason for >> /usr/lib/libecl.so not providing a SONAME? > > That is not something ECL has to provide. It is more a configuration > option that operating systems may provide.
Sorry, I'm not a skilled programmed, but I don't understand why this is not ECL task: ECL provides the libecl.so library, so who else should provide its SONAME? > You have to consider the following: with every binary release we are > adding more functions and the names of old ones change. That means > being a rapidly evolving project we are definitely going to break > binary compatibility very frequently. Isn't this the reason for SONAME existence? At least this is how I see it and it seems that others share my view [1][2]. > I should rather say with every release. This means that you need to update the SONAME for every release. And I don't see this as a stopper. > Furthermore, ECL is currently not being used as a library by any > project. It is only either a runtime for compiled files or the > interpreted environment itself. However a standalone program [3] works out of the box with just libecl.so, doesn't it? This means that while ecl (the executable) is not used as a library, libecl.so acts like a *real* library (as Gabriel Dos Reis already pointed out [4]). Thus, without a SONAME and from a simple `ldd` output, there's no way to know which ECL versions the program was built with. > Do you expect SBCL to use some kind of SONAME for its core? Not > really. SBCL doesn't provide any library which can be used *without* its core (thus they are installed into /usr/lib/sbcl/, the same being true for e.g. CLISP). Similarly, the ECL "libraries" needed for the core reside in /usr/lib/ecl/ and don't need any SONAME. In the next days I'll upload a new Debian version for ECL to solve bug #495756 [5] in time for the lenny release [6]. I'd like to solve this issue as well, is it possible? Thx, bye, Gismo / Luca Footnotes: [1] http://mail-index.netbsd.org/tech-toolchain/1998/07/17/0000.html [2] http://wiki.linuxquestions.org/wiki/Library-related_Commands_and_Files#soname NB, not that I blindly trust random wikis... [3] New manual: "1.6.3. Example of standalone program" [4] Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [5] http://bugs.debian.org/495756 [6] http://wiki.debian.org/DebianLenny
pgpt052c4RGyF.pgp
Description: PGP signature
