LDC 0.14.0 shared library sonames
David Nadlinger via digitalmars-d-ldc
digitalmars-d-ldc at puremagic.com
Thu Aug 21 12:35:27 PDT 2014
On 21 Aug 2014, at 18:47, Konstantinos Margaritis via digitalmars-d-ldc
wrote:
> On Thu, 21 Aug 2014 18:33:54 +0200
> David Nadlinger via digitalmars-d-ldc
> <digitalmars-d-ldc at puremagic.com>
> wrote:
>> lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 15 Aug 8 2012 libz.so.1 ->
>> libz.so.1.2.3.4
>> -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 79980 Dec 28 2009 libz.so.1.2.3.4
>>
>> libz.so.1 is the soname, and a symlink. I still don't see how this is
>> different from what we are doing, or how it would make sense to do
>> this the other way round.
>
> Well, the difference between the two cases is obvious though. In the
> case of libz (and a few others as I checked, and you were right in
> pointing out) is that the libz.so.1 which is the ABI version is the
> symlink to the actual full soname library
It seems like we are talking past each other, although I'm not quite
sure why.
"libz.so.1" *is* the soname:
$ objdump /usr/lib/libz.so.1.2.3.4 -p | fgrep SONAME
SONAME libz.so.1
Same is true for
libdruntime-ldc.so.2.0.65
libdruntime-ldc.so.65 -> libdruntime-ldc.so.2.0.65
and
$ objdump libdruntime-ldc.so.2.0.65 -p | fgrep SONAME
SONAME libdruntime-ldc.so.65
You might not want to ship the additional libdruntime-ldc.so ->
libdruntime-ldc.so.65 symlink in your packages, but that's a Debian
thing and the same as for any other library (Arch Linux for example
ships all those links).
If there is something unusual about the way LDC handles things, I'm
quite interested in fixing them to avoid irritation for packagers. But I
honestly have no clue what the issue is here.
Cheers,
David
More information about the digitalmars-d-ldc
mailing list