On Wed, 2010-01-13 at 01:15 +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote: > On Wednesday 13 January 2010, Adam Williamson wrote: > > On Tue, 2010-01-12 at 01:59 +0100, Milos Jakubicek wrote: > > > Also I have really doubts what concerns upstreamability of the necessary > > > changes in packages. Especially if other distributions will (???) > > > continue shipping ld with the traditional semantics, this means hours of > > > headache discussions with upstream not willing to accept the patch. > > > > I may be misunderstanding, but I believe this is the same thing Mandriva > > refers to as underlinking: > > > > http://wiki.mandriva.com/en/Underlinking > > No, it's not the same thing: Consider an executable a, a library libb.so and a > library libc.so, and a is linked against -lb: > * underlinking is if libb.so uses symbols from libc.so, but does not link > against -lc. Then you have to link a explicitly against -lb -lc even if it > only uses symbols from libb.so. This is a bug in libb.so. > * what is being discussed here is if libb.so DOES link libc.so, but now > executable a uses symbols from libc.so without also using -lc. If libb shipped > a libb.la file which did -lb -lc (which .la files tend to do), then a will link > file everywhere else, just not on Fedora because we delete .la files. The old > semantics made this case work without the .la file, the new semantics lead to > programs failing to link in Fedora, making Fedora incompatible with upstream > (unless we start to ship .la files again). I see - thanks for the explanation. I'm clear now! -- Adam Williamson Fedora QA Community Monkey IRC: adamw | Fedora Talk: adamwill AT fedoraproject DOT org http://www.happyassassin.net -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
