Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: curry - Münster Curry compiler https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=194011 ------- Additional Comments From tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx 2006-06-08 20:46 EST ------- I've been thinking about this a bit and took a look at a couple of things. Obviously the best possible solution would be for the curry compiler to dynamically link the executables it creates, and then package the runtime separately. The question is, how feasible is this? I don't think anything prevents the runtime from being made into a .so; it would just be a few lines in runtime/Makefile.in. And the curry compiler (cyc) is really just a shell script that turns the curry source into C, then calls GCC to compile it and then links it: $exec $CC $debug $ccopts $ldopts /tmp/cyc$$.c $linkfiles $libs $dbglib -lcurry @LDFLAGS@ @LIBS@ So it may be possible to actually make things work without an insane amount of effort. However, assuming that we can't achieve curry packaging Nirvana, is the current package behavior acceptable? Obviously we dislike static libraries and static linking, but if there's no other way to make it work then we either have to package the compiler as is or not package it at all. The standard argument against static linking is one of security: you have to fix every package that linked in the bad library individually. The curry compiler is mostly of research interest and isn't going to be used to produce a large number of security-sensitive programs, so it's probably reasonable to discount the security argument. What remains is Ralf's comment about splitting out the _g library. It is large and not a terrible idea, but there's the issue of cymake failing. However, cymake is just a shell script which calls cyc; it should be easy to patch the appropriate one to check for the existence of the debug library and simply bail with a useful error if it doesn't exist. So the real issue is how much work is involved to make things a bit cleaner. What do you think? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. _______________________________________________ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review