From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 7953 invoked by alias); 25 Jul 2006 00:47:43 -0000 Received: (qmail 7943 invoked by uid 22791); 25 Jul 2006 00:47:42 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from pool-71-248-179-29.bstnma.fios.verizon.net (HELO cgf.cx) (71.248.179.29) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Tue, 25 Jul 2006 00:47:41 +0000 Received: by cgf.cx (Postfix, from userid 201) id 8C85113C0F1; Mon, 24 Jul 2006 20:47:39 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2006 00:47:00 -0000 From: Christopher Faylor To: gdb-patches@sourceware.org, cgf-use-the-mailinglist-please@sourceware.org, Mark Kettenis Subject: Re: [RFC] Add expat to the GDB sources Message-ID: <20060725004739.GB30145@trixie.casa.cgf.cx> Mail-Followup-To: gdb-patches@sourceware.org, cgf-use-the-mailinglist-please@sourceware.org, Mark Kettenis References: <20060718134048.GA15685@nevyn.them.org> <20060723224032.GA5168@trixie.casa.cgf.cx> <200607232318.k6NNIV28004376@elgar.sibelius.xs4all.nl> <20060724152438.GA17094@trixie.casa.cgf.cx> <20060724195118.GE13612@nevyn.them.org> <20060724214157.GC25632@trixie.casa.cgf.cx> <200607242229.k6OMTR1a022831@elgar.sibelius.xs4all.nl> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200607242229.k6OMTR1a022831@elgar.sibelius.xs4all.nl> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.11 X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2006-07/txt/msg00382.txt.bz2 On Tue, Jul 25, 2006 at 12:29:28AM +0200, Mark Kettenis wrote: >cgf wrote: >>It sounds like you're advocating that every project which relies on >>external libraries should include the source code for those libraries. >>If that is the case, it means that we shouldn't bother with shared >>libraries at all. Every package would, instead, be bloated by the >>inclusion of its own version of expat, and openssl, and libtiff, etc. > >Shared libraries are hard. You can only do it right if you correctly >implement a version policy, which is almost impossible to do if you >don't have some sort of central control. It really is only worth >doing if there are more than a handlful of different programs using >the same library that are likely to be used simultaniously. The only way I can make sense of the above paragraph is if you were thinking that I wanted gdb to produce shared libraries. I'm not talking about having gdb produce shared libraries for readline and expat. There would be little point in doing that. What I was saying was that if you carry the "no external dependencies" to every other package on the system then there is very little need for shared libraries since every package will have its own version of the packages it needs. So, shared libraries are not hard. You rely on the distro to do the right thing just like you rely on the distro to produce a usable gcc. Then the packages that come with the distro should use the shared libraries rather than rolling their own version of the libraries. cgf