[gccsdk] Shared library status update

Peter Naulls peter at chocky.org
Tue Jan 8 14:03:21 PST 2008


Lee wrote:

> 
> I originally intended to sub divide !DSO-Libs.lib to categorise the
> libraries that were installed (hence the system directory), but I'm not
> sure that's really necessary, so perhaps a flat structure should be used.
> The easiest way to package would seem to be within a skeleton !DSO-Libs
> including their runtime and compile time symlinks (rather than
> generating them automatically during installation as Linux does). If we
> could standardise the way library names include their version number,
> then that could be used for version control and riscpkg would know
> whether to overwrite an existing version or not. We don't have to
> enforce this, but if a library doesn't include its own version in the
> filename, then it runs the risk of overwriting a newer version.

Yes, we want to use standard names, and I see no reason not to use
precisely RISC OSified versions of the names that the build
systems split out - i.e, stand Unix naming, but we don't want to
rely on filenames for versioning.

The point of packaging is for the package manager to know precisely
the files which belong in a package.  It's true that most shared
libraries will be versioned in their filenames, we we can't
tell from that what libraries belong together, or about other misc
resource files that are used by the library.  The package manager
maintains all this information in its database.

In any case, I'll begin my own experiments, but on the presumption
that there will be further fixes in the pipeline.






More information about the gcc mailing list