> > I could not convince libpng maintainers to use versioned symbols because
> > they were apparently not available on AIX and Windows.
>
> AIX is an ancient PoS. And Windows, well... :)
>
> Symbol versioning is something that can be turned on and off where it is
> available. Not using it becau
On Wed, Apr 09, 2003 at 09:26:12PM -0700, Daniel Schepler wrote:
> > On Tue, Apr 08, 2003 at 07:07:33PM -0400, Richard A Nelson wrote:
> > > Why was this rebuilt with libdb2-dev ? Shouldn't we be trying to
> > > get things to db4.1 at this point ? I'd think db3 at a minimum.
> > > This isn't ju
On Thu, 10 Apr 2003, Junichi Uekawa wrote:
> I could not convince libpng maintainers to use versioned symbols because
> they were apparently not available on AIX and Windows.
AIX is an ancient PoS. And Windows, well... :)
Symbol versioning is something that can be turned on and off where it is
av
* Junichi Uekawa ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> I wouldn't consider them nasty hacks.
You'd be wrong.
> Well, then, they are ld feature, not universally available.
That's correct, amazingly enough.
> I could not convince libpng maintainers to use versioned symbols because
> they were apparently n
* Andreas Metzler ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> Actually it is much simpler, many packages are simply not compileable
> anymore:
>
> libldap2-dev depends on libsasl-dev [1]
> libsasl-dev depends on libdb2-dev (>= 2.7.7.0-7) [2]
> libdb3-dev conflicts with libdb2-dev
>
> [1] introduced in response
Hi,
Pretty interesting mail to receive; an excercise in using negative
response, I assume.
> > You are looking at the wrong part.
>
> No, he isn't.
>
> > They have really versioned their symbols, without
>
> No, they havn't, they've done a nasty hack apparently, which is really
> unfortunate.
* Junichi Uekawa ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> You are looking at the wrong part.
No, he isn't.
> They have really versioned their symbols, without
No, they havn't, they've done a nasty hack apparently, which is really
unfortunate.
> using the GNU ld feature which doesn't work on some platforms:
> > Iirc versioned-symbols in db2 and db3 were introduced by the
> > respective debian maintainers, and db4 shipped them with upstream but
> > my memory might be wrong.
>
> This was based on running objdump -p on the libdb libraries. For db2
> and db3 the output included entries like
>
> Version
Andreas Metzler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Actually, though, it seems libdb4.0 and libdb4.1 don't have versioned
> > symbols -- so if a program links against -lsasl and -ldb4.0 there's
> > still a possibility of problems afaict.
>
> Iirc versioned-symbols in db2 and db3 were introduced by th
Daniel Schepler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Andreas Metzler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
[...]
>> Actually it is much simpler, many packages are simply not compileable
>> anymore:
>>
>> libldap2-dev depends on libsasl-dev [1]
>> libsasl-dev depends on libdb2-dev (>= 2.7.7.0-7) [2]
>> libdb3-dev co
Andreas Metzler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Tue, Apr 08, 2003 at 07:07:33PM -0400, Richard A Nelson wrote:
> > Why was this rebuilt with libdb2-dev ? Shouldn't we be trying to
> > get things to db4.1 at this point ? I'd think db3 at a minimum.
>
> > This isn't just idle curiosity either, S
11 matches
Mail list logo
